The appellate court emphasized that the trial court's dismissal of the injunction application was unreasonable, highlighting the necessity of establishing a prima facie case and balance of convenience for granting injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A.K. Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) & 2 read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.1077/2023 arising of the Title Suit No.678/2023 whereby the injunction application so filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff was dismissed.

3. The question arises in the instant proceedings as to whether this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction which is a limited jurisdiction should interfere with the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.1077/2023. For the purpose of the said, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the case of the appellant as stated in the plaint.

4. From a perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that a written agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 26.04.2023 which was duly registered in the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati and numbered as Deed No.8718 dated 26.04.2023. The said agreement is a part of the instant proceedings.

5. From a perusal of the said agreement, it is apparent that for the purpose of sale of the Schedule-A and Schedule-B plots of land as mentioned in the said agreement, the total consideration fixed was Rs.70,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.2,11,000/- was paid on the date on which the agreement was entered into and the remaining amount of Rs.67,89,000/-was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

6. It is further seen from Clause-6 of the said agreement that the respondent herein had informed that there are four cases which are pending in the Court in connection with the land which are the subject matter of the said agreement. The said cases are Title Suit No.444/2017, Title Suit No.54/2018, Compliant Case C.R. No.1956/2017 as well as Misc. (J) Case No.910/2017. The defendant assured the plaintiff as per the agreement that he would withdraw/settle the aforesaid cases along with any other case/petition (if any) pending in the Court relating to the schedule plot of land within 30 days from the date of execution of the agreement.

7. In Clause-7 of the said agreement, it has been also mentioned that the defendant who is the seller had taken a loan from the ICICI Bank, Guwahati Main Branch by mortgaging the Schedule-B land and the defendant also assured the plaintiff that he would clear the loan before execution of the registered Sale Deed.

8. It is the further case of the plaintiff in the suit that pursuant to the said agreement, the defendant had handed over the possession to the plaintiff on the 26.04.2023. Subsequently, it is also mentioned that on 04.05.2023, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. In addition to that, on 29.05.2023, a further amount of Rs.40,00,000/- was paid to the defendant by cash. It has also been averred in the plaint that on 30.06.2023, another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by cheque and another sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by cheque on 04.08.2023. It is therefore the case of the plaintiff that she had paid a total consideration of Rs.49,11,000/- to the defendant out of the total consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-.

9. The further case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiff had been requesting the defendant to execute the Deed of Sale but the defendant on one pretext or the other was delaying the execution of the Deed of Sale. It is further alleged in the plaint that on 15.10.2023, the defendant entered into the suit property by breaking the locks of the gate which was in possession of the plaintiff. Being shocked, an FIR was filed before the Officer-in-Charge of the Bhangagarh Police Station 16.10.2023. The plaintiff also apprehending that the defendant may take appropriate steps for selling the said suit property to somebody else filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner