Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Nirmal Kumar Sharma @ Nirmal Sharma, S/o. Radha Shyam Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Anjumon Ara Ahmed, W/o. Syed Safiur Rahman – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Devashis Baruah, J.) :
Heard Mr. S Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. R. Ali appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code of 1908) challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1 Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Misc(J).Case No.1188/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.92/2023 whereby the learned Trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status-quo over the Schedule A and Schedule B lands until the Court conclusively decided the suit.
3. At the outset, this Court would like to opine that the impugned order by which both the parties were directed to maintain status-quo over the Schedule A and Schedule B lands is a completely vague direction which the learned Trial Court ought not to have passed in the said manner, taking into account that an order of injunction if passed, has to be specific. The status-quo order denotes various aspects as regards possession, nature and character of the suit property, title, interest created therein etc. Under such circumstances
Injunctions require specificity and must satisfy the criteria of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
An injunction requires satisfaction of three principles: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; failure to apply these principles renders the order unreasonable.
An injunction requires proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which the Trial Court failed to establish.
The court emphasized maintaining status quo in property disputes during the pendency of litigation to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
An injunction cannot be granted without a substantive challenge to the title or rights of the parties, and the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable harm must be considered.
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
Merely having prima-facie case would not entitle an applicant to an injunction. The applicant has to satisfy all the three ingredients.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
