Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 50 (GAU)

Narayan Barman v. Amala Barman

2015-01-20

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2015
Heard Mr. K.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.K.Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant Sri Narayan Barman has put to challenge the order dated 31.3.2011 of the learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar in Misc.Appeal No.4/2010 setting aside the order dated 11.11.2010 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.34/2010 in T.S.No.22/2010 by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kokrajhar. The grievance is in respect of granting ad-interim temporary injunction till disposal of the suit filed by the respondent /plaintiff Smti Amala Barman. 3. The subject matter of the Title Suit No.22/2010 instituted by Smti Amala Barman involves a parcel of homestead land measuring 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas and 12 (twelve) lechas covered by Dag No. 202 (old), 416 (New) of Patta No. 70 within schedule 'C' land of the plaint. The respondent -plaintiff alleges that the said parcel of land has been fraudulently included in the Deed of Gift by the petitioner/defendant who is the foster son of the respondent/plaintiff. It is the case of the respondent /plaintiff that institution of the suit was occasioned as the petitioner/defendant was trying to sell the homestead land, as above, and started to collect advance money form proposed purchasers since 20.8.2010. The prayers in the suit, registered and numbered as T.S.No.22/2010, are as follows: “That the plaintiff prays for- (a) that the deed of gift bearing No.344 dated 26.3.2009 to the extent of 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas of home-stead land within Schedule-'C” of the plaint is fraudulent, invalid, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. (b) that the Defendant did not acquire any right, title, interest over the home-stead land measuring 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas of home-stead land within Schedule-'C” of the plaint. (c) that khas possession of the home stead land measuring 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas within Schedule-'C” of the plaint by evicting the defendant and his agents if any. (d) that setting aside the deed of gift to the extent of home-stead land measuring 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas within 'C' schedule land and direction be given to the Sub-Registrar, Kokrajhar for registration of 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas in favour of the plaintiff. (d) that setting aside the deed of gift to the extent of home-stead land measuring 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas within 'C' schedule land and direction be given to the Sub-Registrar, Kokrajhar for registration of 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas in favour of the plaintiff. (e) that permanent injunction be granted against the Defendant from transferring any part of 2(two) Bighas 3(three) Kathas 12(twelve) lechas home-stead land within Schedule-'C' to any person. (f) that cost of the Suit be decreed against the Defendant. (g) that any other relief which the plaintiff be entitled under law and equity.” 4. Along with the plaint an application for granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. was also filed, registered and numbered as Misc (J) Case No.34/2010 and the same was taken up for consideration on 11.11.2010 in the Court of the Munsiff, Kokrajhar. Order passed is as follows:- “11.11.10 The P.O. is on C.L. Perused the petition filed by the Petitioner u/o 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w/ Section 151 C.P.C. Register it as Misc.(J) Case. Issue notice to the opposite party. Fixing 10.12.10 for S/R & objection. Sd/- B. Roy 11.11.10 Munsiff Kokrajhar, Assam” 5. As against the said order of 11.11.2010 the respondent /plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Court of Civil Judge at Kokrajhar under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 CPC, registered and numbered as Misc.Appeal Case No.4/2010. The prayer made in the said Misc.Appeal 4/2010 is to the effect that the order dated 11.11.2010 amounts to refusal for granting temporary injunction and therefore be set aside with further prayer for granting temporary injunction against the petitioner/defendant. 6. The said Misc. Appeal 4/2010 had come up for consideration before the learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar on 10.12.2010. On the issue of maintainability of appeal the learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court (Shillong Bench) in the case of Sajjan Kumar Tharad and another -vs- Deoris Marbaniang and another, reported in 2010 (2) GLT 773 and found substance in the submission of the counsel for the appellant in favour of maintainability of the appeal. The learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar also having indicated the existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant i.e. Smti Amala Barman passed the order dated 10.12.2010 staying the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff in Misc.(J)case No.34/2010 (In T.S.No.22/2010) with further direction of maintaining status-quo in respect of the suit land until further orders. Notice upon the respondent/defendant was directed to be issued fixing 22.12.2010 for show cause reply. 7. Both the parties having appeared, the Misc. Appeal No.4/2010 was taken up for final disposal on 31.3.2011. After taking note of the facts of the case the learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar considered the rival contentions and case laws cited by the parties with regard to the maintainability of the appeal and the same stood disposed of by making absolute the ex-parte ad- interim injunction granted by the Court earlier on 10.12.2010 until disposal of the T.S.No.22/2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2011 the petitioner/defendant Sri Narayan Barman has approached this Court by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Mr. K.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that the appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar was not maintainable and as a consequence thereof the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 is liable to be set aside and/or be quashed. The counsel further contends that the appellate court ought to have remitted the case to the trial Court for passing order on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. To that end the learned counsel has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in AIR 1984 Gau 86 and AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 316 (Gajraj Singh and others -vs- Ramkumar and others) to buttress his argument that the order under appeal was not an order of refusal or grant of temporary injunction but one under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC which was not appellable in view of the clear mandate as provided under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the CPC. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff primarily contends that the order of the learned Munsiff No.1 Kokrajhar dated 11.11.2010 i.e. the order under appeal is virtually a rejection of the prayer for ad- interim injunction and in that view of the matter the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff is maintainable . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff primarily contends that the order of the learned Munsiff No.1 Kokrajhar dated 11.11.2010 i.e. the order under appeal is virtually a rejection of the prayer for ad- interim injunction and in that view of the matter the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff is maintainable . Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Sajjan Kumar Tharad and another -vs- Deoris Marbaniang Case reported in 2010 (2) GLT 773 and AIR 2000 SC 3032 . 9. I have heard the learned counsels of both parties and also wish to place on record that both parties agree that suitable direction be issued to the trial Court below to hear and dispose of the injunction matter as expeditiously as possible. 10. The law point for determination in the instant proceedings is with regard to as to whether an order passed under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is appellable under Order 43 Rule 1(r). In determining this question it would be apposite to refer to Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC , relevant provisions of which is quoted below: “1. Appeals from orders. An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely, (a) to (q) xxx xxx xxx (r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 [rule 2-A] , rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX. (s) to (w)xxx xxx xxx” Apparently, Rule 3 of Order 39 do not find mention under Order 43 Rule (1) (r)CPC. Section 104 CPC which finds mention under Order 43 Rule 1 is extracted below: “104. (s) to (w)xxx xxx xxx” Apparently, Rule 3 of Order 39 do not find mention under Order 43 Rule (1) (r)CPC. Section 104 CPC which finds mention under Order 43 Rule 1 is extracted below: “104. Orders from which appeal lies.- (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders:- [(ff) an order under section 35-A;] [(ffa) an order under section 91 or section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in section 91 or section 92, as the case may be;] (g) an order under section 95; (h) an order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree; (i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules: [Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause (ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made.] (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.” 11. A bare perusal of Section 104 (1) says that an appeal shall lie from the orders as enumerated therein and from no other orders save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of the Code of Civil Procedure or by any law for the time being in force. 12. In this context, it will also be pertinent to refer to the mandate under Section 105 of the CPC, which prescribes as extracted below: “ 105. Other orders.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction; but , where a decree is appealable from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any party aggrieved by an order of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness.” 13. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any party aggrieved by an order of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness.” 13. It thus appear that Section 105 CPC imposes a further bar on the filing of an appeal against any order passed by a Court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction save as otherwise expressly provided in the Code. 14. It would also be most pertinent to refer to and extract the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC to determine the issue in hand. Rule 3 of Order 39 is as below: “3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to opposite party.-The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: [Provided that, where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the Court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant- (a) to deliver to the opposite party, or to send to him by registered post, immediately after the order granting the injunction has been made, a copy of the application for injunction together with- (i) a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies, and (b) to file, on the day on which such injunction is granted or on the day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent.]” 15. A bare reading of the above Rule 3 as well as looking at Rule 1 & 2 of Order 39 CPC it appears that whereas Rule 1 speaks of grant of temporary injunction in any suit, Rule 2 speaks of injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach in any suit and Rule 3 empowers the Court to direct issue of notice to the opposite party before the grant of injunction. Apparently, Rule 3 also empowers the Court to grant injunction ex-parte if in the opinion of the Court there are materials on record for passing such an ex-parte injunction and the delay in issue of notice would defeat the object of injunction. The rider to the exercise of the power for granting injunction ex-parte is found in the proviso thereto, in that the proviso makes it incumbent on the Court to record its reasons for its opinion. 16. Referring to the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties, at the out set, this Court would like to take up the case of A Venkatasubbiah Naidu -vs- S.Challappan and ors, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3032 . In the said reported case the issue was with regard to as to what would be the position if a Court which passed the order granting interim ex-parte injunction did not record reason thereof or did not require the applicant to perform the duties enumerated in clauses (a) & (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39. The Hon'ble Apex Court while holding that even if such requisites are not stated in so many words, the order can be deemed to contain such requirements at least by implication. The Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that the consequence of the party (who secured the order) for not complying with the duties he is required to perform is that he cannot be allowed to take advantage of such order if the order is not obeyed by other party. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that a disobedient beneficiary of an order cannot be heard to complain against any disobedience alleged against another party. Placing reliance on the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3-A of the Code, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the trial Court ought not to have granted ex-parte injunction beyond 30 days to be in force and thereafter the Apex Court proceeded to consider the consequence, if any, on account of the Court failing to pass the final order within 30 days as enjoined by Rule 3A. The issue was put to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court observing that under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. The issue was put to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court observing that under the normal circumstances the aggrieved party can prefer an appeal only against an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39 of the Code in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. He cannot approach the appellate or rivisional court during the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that in such circumstances the party who does not get justice due to the inaction of the Court in following the mandate of law must have a remedy. In other words, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that in a case where mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code is flouted the aggrieved party shall be entitled to the right of appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction, against the order remaining in force. It further held that in such appeal, if preferred, the appellate Court shall be obliged to entertain the appeal and also to take note of the omission of the subordinate Court in complying with the provisions of Rule 3A. 17. Noticing the facts and the points of law as decided in the case of A Venkatasubbiah Naidu (supra) it is clear that the facts and points of law involved in the present case is different. There is no indication in the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court that a notice simpliciter passed under Order 39 Rule 3 allows right of appeal to the aggrieved party. 18. The next case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent brings us to the case of Sajjan Kumar Tharad and another -vs- Deoris Marbaniang (supra). In the said case, the learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC cannot be read in isolation and that the order of issuance of notice simpliciter, purportedly passed under Order 39 Rule 3 are essential elements of Rules 1 and 2, meaning refusal to grant ex-parte injunction are appellable under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104(1) (i) of the CPC. Be that as it may, this Court proceeds with the instant case on a note of respectful deviation from Sajjan Kumar Tharad's case. 19. Be that as it may, this Court proceeds with the instant case on a note of respectful deviation from Sajjan Kumar Tharad's case. 19. At the outset it appears from the order of the learned Munsiff dated 11.11.2010 that there is no indication recording reasons for refusal of ex-parte injunction. The said order of 11.11.2010 is only in respect of issue of notice to the opposite party. On the materials placed before it the trial Court did not find a case of grant of ex-parte injunction. To reiterate, looking at the nature and contents of the said order of 11.11.2010, it was a notice simpliciter. 20. Whether the order dated 11.11.2010 can be appealed from has to be determined by a strict and careful reading of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r), Section 104, Section 105 and that of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC. Restriction on filing appeal against an order passed under Order 39 Rule 3 to the extent of issuance of notice is restricted and/or not allowed under the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 (r), Section 104 and Section 105. Respectfully stated, the mandate under Section 105 did not fall for consideration in the case of Sajjan Kumar Tharad and another -vs- Deoris Marbaniang (supra), which provision put a further bar on the filing of an appeal against an order made by a Court in exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction, unless such an appeal is expressly provided against such order. 21. In respect of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of Akmal Ali and others -vs- State of Assam and others reported in AIR 1984 Gauhati 86(1) do not discuss pinpointedly as to whether or not an order passed under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is appellable or not. In this context the decision in Akmal Ali case finds favour with the petitioner to the extent that Order 43 Rule 1(r) permits an appeal against specific orders referred to in Order 43 Rule 1(r). It further held that right of appeal conferred by Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 is a statutory right and such right cannot be restricted when no restriction is found in Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1(r). It further held that right of appeal conferred by Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 is a statutory right and such right cannot be restricted when no restriction is found in Section 104 and Order 43 Rule 1(r). In the present case and having regard to the nature of the order dated 11.11.2010 passed under Rule 3 of Order 39, it is an order not coming within the ambit of Section 104 and further restricted by the provisions of Section 105 . 22. AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 316, placed and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a direct case on the point. This Court expresses agreement to the views so rendered in the said judgment i.e. Gajraj Singh and others. 23. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellate Court had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. Consequently, the petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 31.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar in Misc.Appeal No.4/2010 is set aside and quashed. The case is sent back to the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Kokrajhar to dispose of the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff, Smti Amala Barman under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Order. For the ends of justice, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo over the suit land until such time when the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is finally disposed of by the learned trial Court below. Needless to say that the order of status-quo shall remain in effect only for a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court below. Having regard to facts and circumstances, the revision petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.