Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1740 (GAU)

Viwoto Yeptho v. Kuholi Achumi

2024-12-09

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2024
JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 28.07.2023 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.29/2021 arising out of Title Suit No.1/2021. 2. A perusal of the said order reveals that the learned Principal District Judge, Dimapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) had passed a temporary injunction order thereby restraining the Appellants herein who were the Defendants in the suit, their men, agents, employees, workmen etc. from disturbing, interfering and/or obstructing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff/Respondent herein over the suit land covered by Dag No.104 Patta No.287 Mouza No.3 measuring an area of 19 Bighas 0 Kathas 17 Lechas situated at Purana Bazar, Dimapur. The learned Trial Court further restrained the defendants, their men, agents, employees, workmen etc. from forcefully disposing and interfering with the Petitioner from carrying out development work by the Petitioner over the suit land. 3. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submitted that taking into account that the suit is pending as regards declaration of right, title and interest as well as for consequential reliefs, the granting of an injunction insofar as maintenance of the status quo insofar as the land in question, the Appellants have no objection. However, as regards allowing the Respondent No.1 herein who is the Plaintiff in the suit to carry out development work over the land when the subject matter as regards the rights over the land is in dispute was not in accordance with the well settled principles of law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Wander Ltd. And Another Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. reported in 1990 Supp. (1) SCC 727 and more particularly paragraph No.9 wherein the Supreme Court had categorically observed that when the suit is filed, the requirement is to maintain the status quo as it exist as on the date of filing of the suit. The learned counsel submitted that permitting the Plaintiff to carry out the construction when the subject matter of the lis is pending amounts to granting a mandatory injunction permitting the plaintiff to raise construction over the land. The learned counsel submitted that permitting the Plaintiff to carry out the construction when the subject matter of the lis is pending amounts to granting a mandatory injunction permitting the plaintiff to raise construction over the land. He further submitted that the impugned order requires to be interfered with taking into account that the learned Trial Court had made certain observations which would impact the final outcome of the suit. 4. I have also heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff as well as Mr. N. Angami, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. 5. This Court has perused the plaint, the injunction application, the objection so filed as well as the impugned order so passed. From a perusal of the plaint, it reveals that the plaintiff who is the Respondent No.1 herein has sought for a declaration of right, title and interest over the land in question as well as for various consequential reliefs. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff’s right as admitted in the plaint has been clouded by certain actions of the Defendants. It is also seen from the records that the Plaintiff is presently in possession of the land. 6. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has also taken note of the scope of the Appellate jurisdiction in an appeal wherein the learned Trial court had exercised its equitable jurisdiction. The scope is rather limited inasmuch as such an appeal is an Appeal in principle. 7. This Court having perused the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 is of the opinion that the question of interference to the injunction insofar as restraining the Appellants herein, their men, agents, employees, workmen etc. from disturbing, interfering and/or obstructing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land covered by Dag No.104 Patta No.287 Mouza No.3 measuring an area of 19 Bighas 0 Kathas 17 Lechas situated at Purana Bazar, Dimapur requires no interference. 8. However, this Court is also of the opinion that as the suit is presently pending wherein the inter se rights between the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants are in issue, any construction so made during the pendency of the suit or creation of any third party rights would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 8. However, this Court is also of the opinion that as the suit is presently pending wherein the inter se rights between the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants are in issue, any construction so made during the pendency of the suit or creation of any third party rights would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, this Court therefore interferes with the impugned order dated 28.07.2023 insofar as permitting the Plaintiff to carry out the development work over the suit land. This Court is also of the opinion that the order which ought to have been passed in the present facts and circumstances of the case by the learned Trial Court should have been maintenance of status quo as regards right, title, interest, possession over the suit land as well as status quo as regards the nature and character of the land in question. 9. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the instant appeal therefore not interfering with the impugned order insofar as the injunction thereby restraining the Appellants, their men, agents, employees, workmen etc. from disturbing, interfering and/or obstructing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit land covered by Dag No.104 Patta No.287 Mouza No.3 measuring an area of 19 Bighas 0 Kathas 17 Lechas situated at Purana Bazar, Dimapur. However for the reasons abovementioned, this Court directs that the parties to the suit shall maintain status quo as on today insofar as possession, right, title, interest as well as the nature and character over the suit land till the disposal of the suit. 10. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the LCR to the learned Court below. 11. Taking into account that the records were called for and eventually the proceedings of the suit were stayed, this Court directs the parties to the suit to appear before the learned Trial Court on 22.01.2025. The Registry shall ensure that the LCR is placed before the office of the learned Trial Court prior to the next date.