IMPORTANT POINT
An injunction requires proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which the Trial Court failed to establish.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A. Chowdhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Sarkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Bharali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the proforma respondent No.1 and Ms. K. Phukan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the proforma respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Misc. (J) Case No.126/2025 arising out of Title Suit No.93/2025.

3. The challenge so made to the impugned order 18.02.2025 are primarily on the grounds that the said order which is an order of injunction was passed by the learned Trial Court without any discussion to the three golden principles for grant of an injunction. The learned Senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction assuming that injunction is a matter of charity. It was urged that from the materials on record, it would show that the plaintiff has no semblance of any claim in respect to the Schedule-B land. However, the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order, had issued an injunction even over the Schedule B land till the next date. The learned counsel for the appellant further urged on the question of maintainability of the suit in view of the bar contained in Section 167 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 (for short ‘the Regulation’) and submitted that the issue of maintainability which constitutes a very important facet in determining the existence of a prima facie case was not considered.

4. This Court has also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel who submitted that the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 was passed by the learned Trial Court taking into account that it was necessary for the purpose of protection of the subject matter of the suit till the next date in view of the fact that the Government Pleader who represented the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had sought for time to obtain instructions. He therefore submitted that the impugned order having been made only effective till 05.03.2025, this Court in exercise of its appellate equitable jurisdiction ought not to interfere with the same.

5. Taking into account that the learned Trial Court had passed the impugned order which made effective till 05.03.2025 but without assigning any reasons as well as without discussing the principles for grant of injunction, this Court heard the learned counsels for the parties on the question whether the impugned order can be allowed to be continued till 05.03.2025 which is the next date fixed by the learned Trial Court.

6. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/the plaintiff has placed before this Court the documents which were filed and relied upon by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff firm was reconstituted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 by the class of people notified under the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 160 of the Regulation and as such they have rights over the Schedule-A land. The learned Senior counsel submitted that though there were earlier litigations wherein actions were taken by the Revenue Authorities in terms of Chapter-X of the Regulation, but with the present constitution of the plaintiff firm by the notified people, no action can be resorted to by the official defendants on the basis of Chapter-X of the Regulation. He submitted that this very aspect of the matter was brought to the notice