Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Smti. Shanti Devi Jalan @ Shanti Jalan, W/o. Late Laxminarayan Jalan And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Jalan, S/o. Late Laxminarayan Jalan And Ors. – Respondents
CRP(IO) No.5 Of 2025
Decided On : 20-01-2025
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Islam, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.B. Gohain, Adv., Mr. G. Rahul.
Orders issued without notice or justification violate judicial norms and can be set aside by the High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - The petitioners challenged the order of the Trial Court directing status quo without assigning reasons, passed behind their back - The High Court found the order negated established judicial norms and set it aside. (Paras 2, 12, 13)
(B) Jurisdiction - The High Court emphasized its supervisory role under Article 227 of the Constitution, stating that it must intervene when a lower court's order shocks judicial conscience. (Paras 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order directing status quo in a suit regarding business operations, claiming it was passed without their knowledge and lacked justification.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the Trial Court's order to be casual and mechanical, violating judicial norms, and set it aside.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court's order was valid given it was passed without notice to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court ruled that the Trial Court's failure to provide reasons and its actions behind the parties' backs warranted intervention to uphold the Rule of Law.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court's order was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Devashis Baruah, J.)
Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. B. Gohain, appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.
2. The petitioners herein, who are the principal defendants in Title Suit No. 24/2024, have approached this Court challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024. The primary reason for challenge to the said order is that by the said order which an injunction in the form of a status quo had been directed without assigning any reasons. Additionally the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioners.
3. To understand the dispute involved, it is relevant to take note of that the respondent No. 1 herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 24/2024 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia. In the said suit, the plaintiff had sought for a declaration that the plaintiff is a lawful owner of 50% of the share of the proforma defendant No. 6 and has a right to carry out the business of the proforma defendant No. 6 firm on the strength of 50% share as per the policy guidelines of the proforma defendant No. 7. In addition to that, the plaintiff had also sought for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants directing them not to obstruct the plaintiff from smoothly operating the business of the proforma defendant No. 6 on the basis of the 50% of the share.
4. It is relevant to take note of that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff had also filed an Application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”). The said Application was registered and numbered as Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024. In the said Application, the plaintiff had sought for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives assigned etc. from interfering with the smooth operation of the M/S M.P. Jalan Petrol Pump by the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. It is further relevant to take note of that the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 04.04.2024 passed an ad-interim ex-parte injunction thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit firm till the next date. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said order being relevant are reproduced herein under:
“10) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Perused the case record including the documents submitted by the petitioner.
11) Upon considering all, this Court is of the opinion that in order to preserve the subject matter of the suit and for proper adjudication of the matter, both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit firm till next date.”
5. From the operative portion of the said order reproduced, it is seen that the status quo order so passed by the learned Trial Court was only in respect to the suit firm and nothing against the proforma defendant No. 7. The record reveals that the said order has been extended from time to time and the injunction application which is registered as Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 is still pending.
6. It is relevant to take note of that the plaintiff filed an application in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 on 19.12.2024 which has been registered as petition No. 5763/2024. It is very interesting to take note of that in the said application so filed, the plaintiff sought that the status quo order which was already passed on 04.04.2024 be further extended against the proforma defendant No.7. To the said application, the petitioners herein along with the proforma defendant No. 7 sought for time for filing objection.
7. The learned Trial Court vide an order dated 19.12.2024 fixed the matter on 10.02.2025 for hearing on the petition No. 5089/2024 and 5763/2024. At this stage it is relevant to mention that vide the petition N
