Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah
Ayesha Khatun D/O. Kusumuddin Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
Abu Bakkar Siddique – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal challenging the injunction order (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. appeal filed under cpc challenging injunction order. (Para 4) |
| 3. factual background of the land dispute (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. background and nature of the agreement and possession dispute. (Para 7) |
| 5. arguments presented by the appellants (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. court's observation on need for ascertaining possession. (Para 12) |
| 7. court's analysis of the injunction order (Para 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 8. final conclusion and order of the court (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. BD Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Mr. AZ Ahmed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), challenging the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bongaigaon in Misc.(J) Case No.82/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.79/2024 by allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code.
3. It is seen that vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2025, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bongaigaon (hereinafter
A court must ascertain possession before granting an injunction; otherwise, the order may be deemed irrational and unreasonable, especially in cases involving unregistered agreements.
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 convenienc....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
An injunction cannot be granted without a substantive challenge to the title or rights of the parties, and the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable harm must be considered.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
An injunction must be grounded in established legal rights and satisfy three essential conditions; failure to do so renders the injunction order unsustainable.
In contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is generally not of the essence unless explicitly stated, and parties must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
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
