SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 253

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J
Champupara Bazar Committee - Appellant
Versus
Khoirul Hussain S/o- Late Toser Ali - Respondent
FAO 29/2024
Decided On : 21-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Mr. R. Majumdar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Mr. S. Sinha, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for prompt resolution of injunction applications and maintaining status quo until the Trial Court's decision.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1(r) and Section 104 - Appeal against refusal of ad-interim injunction - The appellants sought an injunction to prevent disturbance of possession over suit land, which was denied by the Trial Court due to lack of urgency and evidence - The appeal was filed after the Trial Court's orders dated 28.03.2024 and 23.04.2024 - The Court noted the absence of an injunction application before it and emphasized the need for the Trial Court to expedite the pending injunction proceedings. (Paras 2 - 12 )

(B) Injunction Proceedings - The Court highlighted the importance of resolving injunction applications promptly and maintaining status quo until the Trial Court's decision. (Paras 10 - 11 )

Facts of the case:

The appellants filed a suit for confirmation of possession and sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendants to prevent disturbance of their possession over the suit land. The Trial Court denied the injunction due to insufficient evidence of urgency.

Findings of Court:

The appeal was disposed of with directions for the Trial Court to expedite the injunction proceedings and maintain status quo regarding the suit land until the application is resolved.

Issues: The main issues included the urgency of the injunction request and the propriety of maintaining parallel injunction proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that maintaining two parallel injunction proceedings is improper and emphasized the need for the Trial Court to resolve the pending application expeditiously.

Result: Appeal disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. S. Sinha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) challenging the orders dated 28.03.2024 and 23.04.2024 respectively passed in Misc(J) Case No. 116/2024 (in Title Suit No. 67/2024) whereby the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup, Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) declined to grant an ad-interim injunction against the defendants.

3. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the appellants herein as plaintiffs had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 67/2024 seeking a decree for confirmation of possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land; for eviction of the defendants from the suit property with exemplary cost in favour of the plaintiffs; for recovery of khas possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, workmen and associates from disturbing the peaceful use, occupation and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 67/2024.

4. The appellants herein had also filed an application seeking ad-interim temporary injunction which was registered and numbered as Misc(J) Case No. 116/2024, wherein the appellants herein had sought for an ad-interim injunction restraining the opposite parties/defendants, their men, agents, workmen and associates from disturbing the peaceful possession over the suit land, and/or doing any lawful works of the plaintiffs/petitioners, further occupation of the Schedule- E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M lands illegally by the opposite parties/defendants and in making any structures whether commercial or residential or changing the nature and character of the Schedule lands till the disposal of the suit.

5. It is seen from the records that pursuant to the filing of the said suit, the learned Trial Court was of the view that no case for an urgent relief under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code was made out. The learned Trial Court further observed that no photographs of the alleged constructions undertaken have been filed to buttress the claim and as such, it was the opinion of the learned Trial Court that before passing any order of injunction, the learned Trial Court would hear both the parties. Accordingly vide an order dated 28.03.2024, the learned Trial Court had issued notice to the opposite parties/the respondents herein thereby fixing the date on 23.04.2024.

6. On 23.04.2024, the respondents herein had appeared and filed a petition being petition No. 1181/2024 seeking time for filing written objection. The appellants herein filed another petition being petition No. 1161/2024 to bring on record certain documents and further sought for urgent relief. The prayer for bringing on record certain documents was allowed. However, the learned Trial Court was of the view that no order to stop the alleged constructions can be passed at that stage which was reflected in the order dated 23.04.2024. Being aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court by filing the present appeal. At this stage, it is relevant to observe that along with the appeal, no application was filed before this Court for injunction.

7. This Court heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and given its anxious consideration to the materials on record.

8. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that there was no application for injunction filed before this Court. However, inadvertently the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 08.05.2024 admitted the appeal and further directed that till the returnable date, no construction works shall be undertaken over the S


          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top