Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 493 (GAU)

Ranjit Baruah v. Dulal Neog

2014-05-06

N.CHAUDHURY

body2014
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. P.S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents although notice was duly served upon the respondents. 2. In this appeal an injunction order dated 12.06.2013 passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Misc(J) Case No. 24 of 2008 arising out of Title Suit No. 15 of 2008 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sivsagar, has been assailed. 3. The plaintiff is the respondent No.1 in this case. It is the case of the plaintiff that he being the absolute owner in possession of the land, entrusted respondent No.3, who is an advocate, for taking necessary steps on his behalf who obtained his signatures on the blank papers and after sometime the said Defendant No.3 informed the plaintiff that one Krishna Borah was preparing to create same litigation in regard to property so as to put the plaintiff in difficulty. Under such circumstances, the respondent No.3 pretended to come in aid of the plaintiff by engaging Defendant No.1, Ranjit Baruah, who according to the plaintiff is a surrendered militant. By obtaining signature on stamp paper, the respondents made plaintiff to understand that they were acting in his interest but subsequently the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were proceeding with construction on his suit land and thereafter, the plaintiff engaged another counsel, whereupon the plaintiff came to know about the conspiracy against him by way of forging and preparing some alleged deed of agreement for sale in the name of the Defendant No.1. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff had to institute the suit that the Defendant No.3 by violating his professional standards misconducted and played fraud on the plaintiff by forging the aforesaid documents and also urged for cancellation of the so-called agreement dated 27.12.2005 for sale of the land described in Schedule – A & B to the plaint. In this suit, the plaintiff has made a prayer for recovery of Khas possession which was admittedly given to the three defendants out of good faith. On presentation of the plaint Title Suit No.15 of 2008 was registered and process was issued against the defendants. 4. In this suit, the plaintiff has made a prayer for recovery of Khas possession which was admittedly given to the three defendants out of good faith. On presentation of the plaint Title Suit No.15 of 2008 was registered and process was issued against the defendants. 4. In this suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary and/ or permanent injunction during pendency of Title Suit No. 15 of 2008 restraining the defendants from making any further construction on the suit land and / or changing the nature and character of the suit land. The respondents herein contested both the suits as well injunction petition. The injunction petition was registered as Misc(J) Case No. 24 of 2008. The learned Court after hearing the parties was satisfied that there was a prima facie case for granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, directed the parties to maintain status quo in regard to the suit land during pendency of the suit. This order was passed on 12.06.2013. The defendant No.1 has challenged this injunction order by filing the present appeal. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendants particularly the Defendant No.3 being an engaged counsel of the plaintiff entered into conspiracy with other Defendants i.e. Defendants No.1 & 2 and thereupon, created and manufactured the alleged agreement for sale. The plaintiff dared making allegation against his own advocate that he had never authorised him to draft or prepare any agreement for sale and/ or to go for construction over the suit land. True, the defendants by filing written statement denied this allegation and also raised a counter-claim for specific performance of contract, yet a conspectus of circumstances has come to the fore that with regard to the land in question there is allegation and counter allegation of forgery of agreement for sale. Whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed to prove the allegation leveled in the plaint or not, is all together a different issue but apparently on the face of the pleadings of the parties the dispute is in regard to correctness or otherwise of the agreement of the sale deed. Whether the plaintiff will ultimately succeed to prove the allegation leveled in the plaint or not, is all together a different issue but apparently on the face of the pleadings of the parties the dispute is in regard to correctness or otherwise of the agreement of the sale deed. If in the long run it is found that the allegations made by the plaintiff has substance in that event any construction made over the land may prejudice the interest of the plaintiff apart from giving rise to multiplicity of the proceedings. All these aspects of the matter received due consideration by the learned trial court and having regard to the fact that the basic purpose for granting any interim relief is to maintain the status quo of the property involved in the dispute, the learned court granted injunction in the form of status quo and the same appears to have been done on due consideration of relevant materials. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the pleading brought on record as annexures to the injunction petition as well as main appeal, I feel that ends of justice shall be made if this appeal is closed. Accordingly, it is closed by directing the learned trial court to expeditiously dispose of the suit. It is directed that during pendency of the suit, the parties shall maintain status quo as directed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court shall endeavour to complete the proceedings within a period of 6 (six) months. The parties shall extend necessary co-operation for the purpose. 7. The appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost.