Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah
Sita Devi Kanoi W/O Sri Shyamlal Agarwalla (Kanoi) – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Agarwalla (Kanoi) S/O Late Jagadish Prasad Agarwalla – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims regarding ownership and injunction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. status-quo order and proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding compliance with injunction proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's analysis of injunction application process. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. directions for expediting injunction proceedings. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final orders and directives. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in FAO No.52/2024 and the petitioners in CRP(IO) No.118/2024. Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents in both the proceedings.
2. Both the matters are interconnected and as such taken up together for disposal.
3. The respondents herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No.58/2023 seeking a declaration that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the premises as described in Schedule-A which includes the suit land and described in Schedule-B to the plaint; declaration that the plaintiffs are the coparceners of the defendant No.1 along with the defendant Nos.3 to 7 having right, title and interest with respect to the properties of the defendant No.1; declaration that for
Ex-parte injunctions must be resolved within 30 days as per statutory requirements; injunction procedures should not be converted into a mini-trial and must adhere to existing materials.
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.
Merely making vague allegation without material particulars, in opinion of this Court, do not lead to existence of a prima-facie case.
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.
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
Temporary injunction – Party approaching Court is not entitled to order of injunction as a matter of right – Grant of interim injunction/permanent injunction is discretionary in nature.
The court established that in partition suits, a prima facie case and balance of convenience are essential for granting interim injunctions to prevent irreparable harm.
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
