Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Sobita Rongphari D/o- Late Kardom Ke Aapi – Appellant
Versus
Superlite Aac Blocks Industries – Respondent
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. T
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.
The court emphasized the need to consider the maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience before granting an injunction. It also highlighted the relevance of the time fixed for perform....
Merely having prima-facie case would not entitle an applicant to an injunction. The applicant has to satisfy all the three ingredients.
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
Injunctions require specificity and must satisfy the criteria of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
The court established that for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience must all be satisfied.
Even a trespasser cannot be dispossessed without following the due process of law - If the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs ought to be protected by way of an injunction ....
A plaintiff cannot claim easement rights over government land against a defendant without involving the state as an interested party, making such a suit for injunction unmaintainable.
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
