Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14843

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J
Asomiya Pratidin – Appellant
Versus
Himanta Biswa Sarma – Respondent
FAO/14/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. N. Choudhury, N. Gautam
For the Respondents: D. Saikia, R. Borpujari

An appellate court must not interfere with a trial court's discretionary grant of an interim injunction unless the exercise of such discretion is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, especially when the matter is still pending before the trial court.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 43, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Ex parte ad interim injunction - Appellate interference - Scope - Appellate Court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court except where the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely - Brevity of discussion in the impugned order does not necessarily render it perverse - Importance of addressing the merits before the Trial Court during pending proceedings. (Paras 33, 34, 36, 37)

(B) Appeals - Procedural Requirements - Memo of appeal - Failure to mention specific provision of law in the cause title or absence of prayer is a curable defect and not a ground for dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged an ex parte ad interim injunction order granted by the Civil Judge, which restrained them from publishing further defamatory news items regarding the respondent. The appellants contended that the Trial Court failed to apply the three-fold test (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss) and that the injunction stifled public debate. Respondents argued against the maintainability of the appeal due to procedural defects and highlighted that the defamatory publications were baseless and aimed at political mileage.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that procedural omissions in the memo of appeal are curable and not fatal to the case. It reaffirmed that discretion in granting interim injunctions rests with the Trial Court and should not be interfered with unless essentially perverse. Since the injunction was limited in duration and the matter was pending before the trial court, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order.

Issues: Whether the Trial Court's grant of ex parte ad interim injunction was arbitrary or perverse and whether the appeal is maintainable despite procedural defects in the memo of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: An Appellate Court will not interfere with an interim order of the Trial Court unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Procedural lapses in filing an appeal, such as omitting a specific statutory provision or prayer, should not lead to dismissal if they do not go to the root of the matter.

Result: Appeal disposed of.

Table of Content
1. overview of the trial court's ex-parte injunction order and the context of the defamation suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments regarding the validity of the injunction and procedural maintainability of the appeal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. respondent's justification for the injunction based on reputation and political timing. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. analysis of procedural curability regarding naming of provisions and prayer in appeals. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. limitations on appellate interference in discretionary trial court orders. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

Judgment & Order

1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Though, notices on the other respondents were duly served, however, none has appeared on their behalf, when the matter was called on for hearing. Hence, this Court decided to proceed ex-parte against them.

2. This appeal under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellants, namely, (1) Asomiya Pratidin, (2) Sri Jayanta Baruah and (3) Sri Jatin Choudhury, impugning the order dated 11.02.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M) in Misc (J) Case No. 156/2026 in connection with the Title Suit No. 85/2026, whereby, ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the present respondent No. 1 by injuncting the present appellants from making, publishing, circulating or disseminating any further defamatory statements or materials concerning the present respondent No. 1 with regard to the news items published, on 05.02.2026, in the Assamese daily newspaper, Asomiya Pratidin, which were captioned as “ RAAJYAT NAAME-BENAAME SAMPATTI KROY – MUKHYA MANTRIR PARIYAALOR 12 HEJAAR BIGHAA BHUMI”, and (ii) “ HIMANTA BISWA KAARO NAHAY JAARE GHANISTHA HOICHE, TAREI PITHIT CHURI BAHUAAICHE”.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present respondent No. 1, namely, Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma had filed a Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 85/2026, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati against the present appellants and three other persons, namely, (1) Sri Gaurav Gogoi, (2) Sri Jitendra Singh and (3) Sri Bhupesh Baghel (who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively in the instant appeal).

4. In the said suit, the present respondent No. 1 has prayed for a declaration that the news items mentioned hereinbefore, which were published in the newspaper Asomiya Pratidin on 05.02.2026 are defamatory and has harmed the name, fame, reputation, goodwill and future prospects of the present respondent No. 1. The present respondent No. 1 has also prayed for a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Crores) for the damage done by the respondents to his reputation. The relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been prayed for restraining the present appellants and other defendants from making any statement, printing, publishing, circulating or disseminating any news items in furtherance of the above-mentioned news items. The respondent No. 1 has also prayed for a relief of permanent mandatory injunction by directing the present appellants to publish clarification and apology in connection with the aforesaid news items published in the Asomiya Pratidin Newspaper on 05.02.2026.

5. It is also averred by the present respondent No.1, in the plaint filed by him, before the Trial Court, in the Title Suit No. 85/2026, that on 14th February 2026, the present appellant published two news items in the Asomiya Pratidin newspaper with the caption as already indicated in paragraph No. 2 hereinabove. The said news items w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14843

GAUHATI HIGH COURTMridul Kumar Kalita, JAsomiya Pratidin – AppellantVersusHimanta Biswa Sarma – RespondentFAO/14/2026

An appellate court must not interfere with a trial court's discretionary grant of an interim injunction unless the exercise of such discretion is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, especially when the matter is still pending before the trial court.

Cases Referred (4)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J
Asomiya Pratidin – Appellant
Versus
Himanta Biswa Sarma – Respondent
FAO/14/2026