A temporary injunction can be granted to a defendant against a plaintiff, even without a counter-claim, if the relief sought arises directly from or is incidental to the plaintiff’s cause of action. Appellate courts will not interfere with such discretionary orders absent perversity or manifest illegality.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

[1] By this common judgment, this court proposes to dispose of the FAO No. 57 of 2024 as well as CRP(IO) No. 407 of 2024 as both are connected cases and arise out of the same matter between same parties.

[2] Heard Mr. B. J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

[3] This FAO under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellants, impugning Order dated 29.06.2024, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon in Misc. (J) Case No. 27 of 2024 in connection with Title Suit No. 149 of 2023, whereby, the prayer for grant of temporary injunction in respect of Schedule – “B” land by the respondents/defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of the Civil Procedure has been allowed.

[4] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present appellants, as plaintiff, filed a suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, which was registered as Title Suit No. 149 of 2023 praying for relief of declaration, cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction. It has been stated in the plaint that the present appellants had purchased a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas from one Billal Hussain. The said Billal Hussain purchased the aforesaid land of 2 Kathas 10 Lechas out of the total land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lechas from one Atowar Rahman in the year 1992. It is further stated in the plaint that the said Atowar Rahman with his remaining three (3) brothers again sold the entire plot of land of 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lechas (including the plot of land which was sold previously by Atowar Rahman to the present appellants) in favour of the defendants. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs have claimed for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are the owners and possessors of the plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas, which is more specifically described in Schedule –“A” of the said plaint. They have also prayed for cancellation of the sale deed by which the entire plot of land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lechas were subsequently sold to the defendants. In the aforesaid title suit, the plaintiffs have also prayed for a relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from Schedule –“A” plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 10 Lechas.

[5] In the aforesaid suit, the present respondents had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for grant of temporary injunction by restraining the present appellants/plaintiffs from dispossessing them from entire Schedule – “B” land of 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lessas and by the impugned Order dated 29.06.2024, the aforesaid temporary injunction was granted to the respondents/defendants.

[6] Mr. B. J. Mukherjee, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned order, by which the temporary injunction was granted against the present appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the aforesaid title suit, is bad in law. He submits that the defendants in whose favour the temporary injunction was granted by the Trial Court by the impugned order had not filed any counter-claim, when the said injunction was granted. He further submits that the defendants as petitioners, in the aforesaid Misc (J) Case No. 27 of 2024, in