IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the criteria for granting a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC must be strictly adhered to, emphasizing the necessity of a prima facie case and the balance of convenience.

JUDGMENT :

Budi Habung, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Sunil, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. R. Sonar, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present appellant is the plaintiff in the Title Suit No. 17/2023 which is pending before the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pasighat for declaration of Right, Title and Interest over the Suit Land; for cancellation of Gift Deed; for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction

3. Along with the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC, 1908 was also filed by the appellant for grant of temporary injunction with a prayer for ad interim ex-parte injunction. After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioners, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.08.2023 passed ad interim ex-parte status quo order in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner/appellant herein. The said Injunction Application was registered and numbered as Misc (J) Case no. 59/2023 arising out of Title Suit No. 17/2023.

4. The defendant/respondent then filed objection against the Injunction Application filed by the petitioner/appellant herein. On 04.10.2023, the Injunction Application was heard and after hearing the parties and after perusing the materials on record, the learned Trial Court vacated the ad interim ex-parte status quo order dated 09.08.2023 passed in the Injunction Application for the reasons stated in the said order.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned vacation order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pasighat in Misc (J)/59/2023 arising out of Title Suit No. 17/2023, this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner/appellant herein under order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 amongst others on the following grounds :

(i) That the appellant was gifted the Schedule Land by her mother by executing a Gift Deed dated 19.05.2022, and the purported Land Possession Certificate (hereinafter referred to as LPC) dated 13.06.2022 possessed by the respondent in respect of the suit land, i.e., 9559 Sq.mtrs out of the Schedule Land was obtained fraudulently by the respondent.

(ii) That while deciding prima facie case, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that a perusal of the purported Gift Deed dated 12.04.2013 alleged to have been executed by the mother in favour of the respondent herein goes to show that the Gift Deed dated 12.04.2013 was executed in favour of 3 (Three) sons. However, the respondent on its own, by illegal means obtained LPC in respect of the suit land i.e., 9559 sq.mtrs. Thus, the conduct of the respondent herein was evident for the learned Trial Court to appreciate it, even then, the learned Trial Court was of the view that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case in favour of the appellant.

(iii) That the learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that all along, the mother of the appellant was protesting or taking steps against the acts and misdeeds of the respondent. On the information of the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 12.09.2022 was pleased to stop the construction work carried out by the respondent as the right of the appellant flows from the mother by virtue of the Gift Deed dated 19.05.2022 and in absence of handing over of the possession of the suit land, the mother was well within her right to file complaint against any illegal activities carried out by the respondent.

(iv) that while deciding prima facie case, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant was well within the 3 (three) years period to seek any declaration against the respondent. That the learned Trial court contradicted herself in as much as the Trial Court by an order dated 09.08.2023 was pleased to pass ad interim ex-parte status quo, after being satisfied of the case projected by the appellant. However, later on by an impugned order dated 04.10.2023, the learned Trial C