Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Sankar Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Bikrom Singha Lahkar, Son of Sri Khagen Singha Lahkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B. Borah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Bikrom Singha Lahkar, respondent-in-person.
2. This appeal, under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 06.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.1052/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.619/2023. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 06.04.2024, the learned trial court had granted temporary mandatory injunction and directed the present appellants to remove the boundary wall from the front side of the building of the respondent herein this case and open up the right of way for free movement of the respondent of this case his vehicles for ingress and egress to his building standing over the Schedule- ‘B’ land which is part of Schedule-‘A’ land mentioned in the application.
Background Facts:-
3. The background facts leading to filing of present appeal are adumbrated herein below:-
The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No.619/2023, before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arraigning th
The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a mandatory injunction, emphasizing the necessity of a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoring the applicant.
Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Where there is construction raised on disputed property alleged to be owned by plaintiffs, appropriate and efficacious remedy available to them was to institute suit f....
The need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the substantial compliance with procedural requirements, the breach of setback rules/bye-laws, the right of a neighbor to seek demolition, and the ....
A temporary injunction cannot be granted without discussing essential principles, and a property owner cannot be restrained from using their property without a strong prima facie case.
The court reiterates that interim mandatory injunctions cannot be granted when the same relief is sought in the main suit without leading compelling evidence.
The court clarified that to obtain a temporary injunction, a party must demonstrate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of convenience, and a prima facie case even without physical possession.
An injunction requires proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which the Trial Court failed to establish.
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 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
