JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Kalita, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal was listed in the ‘orders’ column, for consideration of the prayer for an ad-interim injunction in the connected I.A.(C) No.1668/2016. Considering the nature of prayer made in the said I.A., this Court is of the view that upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties in respect of the said I.A., even the present appeal can be disposed of together at this stage. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsels for both sides, the entire matter was heard. 3. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 CPC is directed against the order dated 21.09.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 232/2016, arising out of Title Suit No. 175/2016. By the impugned order, the learned trial court had refused the prayer for passing an order of ad-interim injunction till disposal of the suit. 4. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in TS No. 175/2016, which is pending for disposal before the Court of Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”). The appellant is a firm doing business as a builder. The appellant along with another builder, namely, M/s. Manjula Business Consortium on one part and the respondent, namely, Md. Intag Ali @ Munna and his brothers, namely, Md. Amzad Ali @ Nilu and Md. Yusuf Ali @ Babu and sisters, namely, Mustt. Taharun Nessa @ Janu Begum and Mustt. Minuwara Begum @ Soni on the other part had entered into a “Deed of Agreement for Construction of Apartment Building dated 20.03.2013”, registered on 17.06.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Construction Agreement). The proposed construction was to come up on the land described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B mentioned in the said agreement, which were offered by the respondent as well as his two brothers and two sisters named herein before (hereinafter jointly referred to as land-owners). In lieu of the said land, the land owners were entitled to allotment of space measuring about 5,000 sq. ft. in form of five separate flats having super-built area measuring about 1,000 sq. ft. each complete with bathroom fittings and fixtures together with 5 car parking space. In lieu of the said land, the land owners were entitled to allotment of space measuring about 5,000 sq. ft. in form of five separate flats having super-built area measuring about 1,000 sq. ft. each complete with bathroom fittings and fixtures together with 5 car parking space. The case projected in the plaint is that while the two brothers and two sisters of the respondent were satisfied on receiving their respective flats, the respondent had verbally requested the appellant for a bigger flat and, as such, he was shown Flat No.C-2 at the 2nd floor of the newly constructed building, which was measuring about 1,280 sq. ft. The respondent agreed to take possession of the said flat and it was verbally agreed that the appellant would be paid sale consideration for the additional space of 280 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.2,800/- per sq. ft., amounting to total consideration of Rs.7,84,000/-. It is claimed that although the said flat No. C-2 was allotted to the respondent, the same was still in the possession of the appellant and that the appellant apprehended that the respondent may enter into the said flat without paying the agreed consideration of Rs.7,48,000/-, which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the appellant and taking over the physical possession of the said flat would be in violation of the Construction Agreement as well as their verbal agreement. It was also projected that on the basis of the verbal request by the respondent for such additional space of 280 sq. ft., the respondent had issued 3 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each to the appellant with commitment to further pay the remaining amount in cash. However, as the said cheques were drawn on “self” but were not issued in the name of the appellant, those three cheques were returned and the respondent was required to hand over the agreed payment in the name of the appellant. Without making any payment, the respondent had served a notice dated 16.02.2016, demanding completion of the flat and had projected that the respondent was suffering a loss of Rs.10,000/- per month. On receipt of the said notice, the appellant had sent their reply demanding the sum of Rs.7,84,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. By filing the suit, the appellant had, inter-alia, prayed for declaration that there was a subsisting contract between the appellant and the respondent for allotting 280 sq. ft. On receipt of the said notice, the appellant had sent their reply demanding the sum of Rs.7,84,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. By filing the suit, the appellant had, inter-alia, prayed for declaration that there was a subsisting contract between the appellant and the respondent for allotting 280 sq. ft. finished floor area at the cost of Rs.2,800/- per sq. ft., being total of Rs.7,84,000/- in the residential flat measuring originally 1,000 sq. ft. and that the appellant was entitled to recovery of said amount together with a further sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation, along with 14% interest, as well as for other relief’s. It may be mentioned that the present respondent was arrayed as the sole defendant in the suit. Along with the suit, the appellant had filed a separate Misc. Case, praying for ad-interim injunction, which was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 232/2016. 5. The respondent contested the suit by filing his written statement together with a counter-claim. It was projected by the respondent that the suit premises i.e. the allotted Flat No.C-2 in the 2nd floor of Saraighat Apartment was handed over to the respondent and that he had kept the said suit premises under lock and key. However, on good faith, one key of the said flat was handed over to the appellant to allow the appellant to do some work. However, the appellant had not done anything for the incomplete works of the said flat. The respondent had taken a stand that he was allotted Flat No. C-2, as such he was not required to make any payment in respect of the suit premises. The existence of any oral agreement for allotment of additional space of 280 sq. ft. on payment of cost was specifically denied and therefore, the respondent denied any liability to pay any amount as claimed by the appellant. The existence of any oral agreement for allotment of additional space of 280 sq. ft. on payment of cost was specifically denied and therefore, the respondent denied any liability to pay any amount as claimed by the appellant. In the counter claim, the respondent had prayed for specific performance of contract by directing the appellant to execute a registered deed to hand over possession of the suit premises (i.e. flat) and also for a decree of completion of the construction of the building within a specific time frame and for declaration that the respondent was the absolute title owner and possessor of the suit premises described in the schedule of the said counter-claim and for confirmation of possession over the said suit premises, and for other relief’s. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was a verbal contract between the appellant and the respondent, by which the appellant had become entitled to the full payment of a sum of Rs.7,84,000/- against 280 sq. ft. space, which was in addition to the allocable area of 1,000 sq. ft. super-built area. It is submitted that the specific stand of the appellant was that they were still in actual physical possession of the suit premises as on date and, as such, if the relief of ad-injunction as prayed for is not granted, there was reasons to apprehend that the respondent would take law into his own hands and would dispossess the appellant from the suit premises. It is submitted that the appellant has kept a flat with super-built area of 1,000 square feet area for delivering to the respondent and, as such, the appellant was facing double loss, which is irreparable. Moreover, the non-payment of the agreed sum amounted to breach of oral contract between the parties. It is submitted that although as per the impugned order passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 232/2016, the learned trial court found prima facie case for trial in favour of the appellant, yet, it arrived at a perverse conclusion by holding that balance of convenience was not in favour of grant of injunction. It is submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the pleadings in its true perspective and erred in law in refusing to grant ad-interim injunction. 7. It is submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the pleadings in its true perspective and erred in law in refusing to grant ad-interim injunction. 7. It is also submitted that under the facts of the case, the learned trial court failed to consider that the court had inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for issuing ad-interim injunction to prevent breach of verbal agreement and to prevent loss to the appellant. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Manohar Lal Chopra Vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the legislature is incapable of contemplating of possible circumstance under which future litigation may arise and therefore, under the circumstances wherein temporary injunction cannot be granted under the existing scheme of Section 94 CPC, the court had inherent power under Section 151 CPC for granting temporary injunction. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as a builder, the appellant was only required to assure delivery of the agreed area of 5,000 sq. ft. to all the land-owners @ 1,000 sq. ft. flats to each of the five land-owners and thereafter, the appellant was entitled to retain all other space falling within the builder’s allocation and therefore, as the respondent had occupied a flat having larger floor area than he was actually entitled to under the Construction Agreement, the appellant was suffering irreparable loss and injury because the respondent had started to illegally claim his alleged right over a flat measuring 1,280 sq. ft. It is submitted that flat measuring 1,280 sq. ft. was allotted to the respondent because of their oral agreement for the additional space of 280 sq. ft. However, the respondent was handed over the allotment letter dated 23.05.2014 wherein it has been mentioned that flat measuring more or less 1,000 sq. ft. was allotted to the respondent. ft. It is submitted that flat measuring 1,280 sq. ft. was allotted to the respondent because of their oral agreement for the additional space of 280 sq. ft. However, the respondent was handed over the allotment letter dated 23.05.2014 wherein it has been mentioned that flat measuring more or less 1,000 sq. ft. was allotted to the respondent. In this connection, it is submitted that it is only after the construction of flat is completed, both the parties can measure the actual constructed area and that it is only after actual measurement of the constructed area is carried out can the concerned parties become aware of the actual constructed area and therefore, pending the final measurement after completion of the construction, instead of mentioning a firm and specified area, the appellant had used the words “more or less” only to indicate estimated measurement of flat allotted to the respondent. It is further submitted that the writing of “more or less 1000 sq. ft.” did not entitle the respondent to an additional area of 280 square feet, which is substantial in nature being 28% area more than the original flat area allocable to the respondent. 9. It is further submitted that this appellate Court is called upon only to decide on the legality of the impugned order, otherwise, any observation on the merit of the suit may prejudice either side at the time of trial of the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant presses for allowing the appeal and for granting ad-interim injunction in terms of the prayer made in the injunction petition filed before the learned trial court till the disposal of the suit. 10. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of the “Owner’s Allocation Letter” under Reference No. BRD/102 dated 23.05.2014, issued by the appellant and it is submitted that the respondent was allotted the flat measuring more or less 1,000 sq. ft. He further submits that the respondent had taken a specific plea in his written statement –cum- counter-claim that after the allotment of the agreed five flats to the land-owners, the appellant had started to pressurize them to sell their respective flats to the appellant and pursuant to such pressure, one of his brother, namely, Md. ft. He further submits that the respondent had taken a specific plea in his written statement –cum- counter-claim that after the allotment of the agreed five flats to the land-owners, the appellant had started to pressurize them to sell their respective flats to the appellant and pursuant to such pressure, one of his brother, namely, Md. Yusuf Ali had signed an agreement for selling his allotted flat to the appellant. It is submitted that the present suit was the appellant’s pressure tactics to harass the respondent. 11. Before entering into the merits of the respective arguments advanced by both sides, it is required to mention herein that this Court vide order dated 06.10.2016, directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises till the next date fixed. Thereafter, this appeal was listed on 22.05.2017, 13.07.2017 and 13.11.2017, but no prayer was made for extending the order of status quo any further, as such, the said order of status- quo dated 06.10.2016 had spent its force. 12. It is observed by this Court that in the Construction Agreement, all the land-owners including the respondent were entitled to super-built area measuring 5,000 sq. ft. area in form of 5 flat units of 1,000 sq. ft. each, including sanitary fittings and fixtures with 5 (five) car parking space. Moreover, in paragraph-5 of the plaint, the stand of the appellant was that although the appellant had formally issued the allotment letter within the valid time period of agreement, but the actual transfer and the physical possession of the flat was not given to the respondent as the appellant had not received any money against the dues of the additional floor area of 280 sq. ft. This plea is prima-facie untenable for the purpose of considering the prayer for ad-interim injunction of the appellant because this Court is of the considered opinion that the “Owner’s Allotment Letter dated 23.05.2014 is one form of grant or other disposition of property because right of the land-owner over the allotted flat flows from the said document. Under the circumstances, by applying the principles of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 this Court cannot presume that the allotment said letter was not acted upon. Therefore, this appears to be an issue requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. 13. Under the circumstances, by applying the principles of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 this Court cannot presume that the allotment said letter was not acted upon. Therefore, this appears to be an issue requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. 13. It is further seen that in the written statement, the respondent had taken a specific plea about the allotment of flat No.C-2 by virtue of “Owner’s Allocation Letter bearing Reference No. UBRD/102 dated 23.05.2014” and it is submitted at the Bar that a copy of the said document had been filed in the record of the suit by the respondent. But, the appellant has not filed this vital document as enclosure to the Memo of this Appeal. Therefore, ideally an adverse presumption under Section 114 Illustration (g) of Evidence Act, 1872 is required to be drawn against the appellant for withholding the same from this Court, nonetheless, such adverse presumption has not been taken at this stage because a copy of the said document as produced by the learned Counsel for the respondent has been taken on record. 14. As already mentioned above, it is seen that in the suit the appellant has prayed for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,84,000/- with 14% interest in respect of additional space of 280 sq. ft., said to be contained in Flat No.C-2. The appellant has also claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- together with 14% interest in the suit. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, as the appellant has already claimed monetary relief against the respondent, as such, this is not a case where the appellant cannot be compensated in terms of money. Moreover, it is observed that as per the “Owner’s Allocation Letter dated 23.05.2014”, the respondent has been allotted the suit premises, bearing Flat No.C-2, measuring more or less 1,000 sq. ft. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there appears to be no perceivable loss or injury which cannot be computed or compensated in terms of money, if instead of flat measuring 1,000 sq. ft., a flat measuring 1,280 square feet was actually delivered to the respondent and if there was actually a verbal agreement by which the respondent had agreed to pay for the price of the purported additional space. However, the said facts are liable to be determined at the trial. ft., a flat measuring 1,280 square feet was actually delivered to the respondent and if there was actually a verbal agreement by which the respondent had agreed to pay for the price of the purported additional space. However, the said facts are liable to be determined at the trial. However, the fact remains that it is undisputed by either side that under the Construction Agreement, the respondent was in fact entitled to possession of a flat. Therefore, except for the disputed area measuring 280 sq. ft., which is the subject matter of the suit, the “Owner’s Allocation Letter dated 23.05.2014” does create a right of the respondent over the suit premises as the said document is subsisting and in force. Moreover, if the respondent continues to hold over the suit premises, which is his allotted flat, there would be no breach of the agreement because it is the appellant who has allocated the flat No.C-2 to the respondent. In the absence of any conclusive proof on the point, at this stage, this Court is unable to arrive at a definite finding that the area of the suit premises, being Flat No. C-2 is 1,280 sq. ft. 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the decision of the learned Trial Court that there exists a prima facie case for trial. As indicated above, this Court finds that the appellant has prayed for realizing a sum of Rs.7,84,000/-, being the cost of the alleged additional space of 280 sq. ft., with 14% interest, and the appellant has also prayed for realizing compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest @ 14% per annum. Moreover, not only the suit premises was allotted to the respondent, but by virtue of ownership of the land, the respondent also has title over the land and, as such, as on date of filing of the suit by the appellant, the respondent is found to be entitled to the suit premises and, as such, there cannot be an order of injunction against the lawful owner. Therefore, although for different reasons, the learned Trial Court appears to have rightly held that the balance of convenience is not in favour of grant of injunction or in favour of the appellant. Such a finding does not appear to be contrary to any established principle of law. Therefore, although for different reasons, the learned Trial Court appears to have rightly held that the balance of convenience is not in favour of grant of injunction or in favour of the appellant. Such a finding does not appear to be contrary to any established principle of law. As already indicated above, question of irreparable loss and injury of the appellant cannot arise as he has already filed the suit for recovery of money and compensation as well as for interest thereon. Therefore, the finding by the learned Trial Court on the three golden principles of injunction, i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury do not appear to be vitiated by any incorrect appreciation of facts or of law. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not appear to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error. 16. Insofar as the reference by the learned Counsel of the appellant to the case of Manohar Lal Chopra (supra) is concerned, this Court is aware of the well settled principles laid down in the various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the civil court has inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for grant of injunction. It is also equally well settled that where there are specific provisions of CPC which govern for granting injunction, invoking the power under Section 151 CPC is not welcome and that powers under Section 151 must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for which CPC lays down no procedure. If one needs an authority on the same, the case of Meera Chouhan V. Harsh Bishnoi, (2007) 12 SCC 201 may be referred to. In the present case in hand, it is seen that the appellant has already made a prayer for recovery of money and compensation, therefore, there is no chance that the appellant will suffer any loss or injury which is irreparable or cannot be computed or compensated in terms of money. Moreover, the suit premises, i.e. the Flat No. C-2 has been allotted to the respondent by way of “Owner’s Allocation Letter dated 23.05.2014”. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that an exceptional case for grant of ad-interim injunction under Section 151 CPC has not been made out, as such, the prayer for grant of ad-interim injunction has been rightly refused by the learned Trial Court in the present case. 17. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that an exceptional case for grant of ad-interim injunction under Section 151 CPC has not been made out, as such, the prayer for grant of ad-interim injunction has been rightly refused by the learned Trial Court in the present case. 17. In view of the discussions above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Court of Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc.(J) Case No. 232/2016 arising out of Title Suit No.175/2016. 18. However, this Court would like to clarify that the observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding this appeal, as such, it is provided that the learned trial court shall not be influenced by the observations made herein and shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. 19. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost. 20. The parties, who are duly represented by their learned Counsels, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.12.2017 without any further notice for appearance, and by producing a certified copy of this order, the parties shall seek further instructions from the said learned Court.