Page No.# 1/8 vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2079 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs Rajesh Kumar Jalan And 3 Ors on 20 January, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                   Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010279932024




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:543

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : CRP(IO)/5/2025

         SMTI. SHANTI DEVI JALAN @ SHANTI JALAN AND 3 ORS
         W/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN, C/O DR. PANKAJ GOEL, R/O
         PARBOTIA FEEDER ROAD, INFRONT OF A.R. WINE, P.O. AND P.S. AND
         DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM

         2: RAMESH KUMAR JALAN
          S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN
          R/O HIJUGURI
          P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA
          DIST- TINSUKIA
         ASSAM

         3: SANJOY KUMAR JALAN
          S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN
          R/O HIJUGURI
          P.O. AND P.S.- TINSUKIA
          DIST- TINSUKIA
         ASSAM

         4: SMTI. AMITA GOEL
          D/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN
         W/O DR. PANKAJ GOEL
          R/O PARBOTIA FEEDER ROAD
          INFRONT OF A.R. WINE
          P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         RAJESH KUMAR JALAN AND 3 ORS
         S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN, R/O HOUSE NO. 17, GAYATRI KUNJ,
         CHITRALEKHA PATH, NEAR GNRC HOSPITAL, SUPER MARKET, P.O. AND
         P.S.-DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781006
                                                                       Page No.# 2/8

            2:SURESH KUMAR JALAN
             S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN
             R/O GAYATRI NIWAS
            A.T. ROAD
             HIJUGURI
            TINSUKIA
             P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
            ASSAM
             PIN-786125

            3:M/S M.P. JALAN
             A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
            INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT
             1932
             HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HIJUGURI
             P.O. AND P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
             ASSAM
             PIN-786125

            4:M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
             INDIAN OIL AOD
             STATE OFFICE (MARKETING DIVISION)
             NOONMATI
             SECTOR-III
             GUWAHATI
             KAMRUP (M)
             PIN-781020
             REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGE



For the Petitioner(s)     : Mr. S. Islam, Advocate


For the Respondent(s)     : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
                            Mr. R.B. Gohain, Advocate
                            Mr. G. Rahul for respondent Nos. 1 to 3


       Date of Hearing                          : 20.01.2025
       Date of Judgment                         : 20.01.2025
                                                                         Page No.# 3/8


                                 BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                          JUDGMENTAND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. G. Rahul, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. B. Gohain, appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioners herein, who are the principal defendants in Title Suit No. 24/2024, have approached this Court challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024. The primary reason for challenge to the said order is that by the said order which an injunction in the form of a status quo had been directed without assigning any reasons. Additionally the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioners.

3. To understand the dispute involved, it is relevant to take note of that the respondent No. 1 herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 24/2024 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia. In the said suit, the plaintiff had sought for a declaration that the plaintiff is a lawful owner of 50% of the share of the proforma defendant No. 6 and has a right to carry out the business of the proforma defendant No. 6 firm on the strength of 50% share as per the policy guidelines of the proforma defendant No. 7. In addition to that, the plaintiff had also sought for a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants directing them not to obstruct the plaintiff from smoothly operating the business of the proforma defendant No. 6 Page No.# 4/8

on the basis of the 50% of the share.

4. It is relevant to take note of that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff had also filed an Application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code"). The said Application was registered and numbered as Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024. In the said Application, the plaintiff had sought for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives assigned etc. from interfering with the smooth operation of the M/S M.P. Jalan Petrol Pump by the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. It is further relevant to take note of that the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 04.04.2024 passed an ad-interim ex- parte injunction thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit firm till the next date. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said order being relevant are reproduced herein under:

" 10) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the case record including the documents submitted by the petitioner.

11) Upon considering all, this Court is of the opinion that in order to preserve the subject matter of the suit and for proper adjudication of the matter, both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit firm till next date."

5. From the operative portion of the said order reproduced, it is seen that the status quo order so passed by the learned Trial Court was only in respect to the suit firm and nothing against the proforma defendant No. 7. The record reveals that the said order has been extended from time to time and the injunction Page No.# 5/8

application which is registered as Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 is still pending.

6. It is relevant to take note of that the plaintiff filed an application in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 on 19.12.2024 which has been registered as petition No. 5763/2024. It is very interesting to take note of that in the said application so filed, the plaintiff sought that the status quo order which was already passed on 04.04.2024 be further extended against the proforma defendant No.7. To the said application, the petitioners herein along with the proforma defendant No. 7 sought for time for filing objection.

7. The learned Trial Court vide an order dated 19.12.2024 fixed the matter on 10.02.2025 for hearing on the petition No. 5089/2024 and 5763/2024. At this stage it is relevant to mention that vide the petition No. 5089/2024, the plaint sought for appropriate direction that the proforma defendant No. 7 be treated as one of the principal defendants.

8. Strangely, on 20.12.2024, the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 whereby the learned Trial Court directed the parties, including the proforma defendant No. 7 to maintain status quo till the disposal of petition number 5763/2024. This was done so in spite of the fact that on 19.12.2024 there is a specific order being passed by the learned Trial Court fixing 10.02.2025 for hearing on the petition number 5763/2024 along with petition No. 5089/2024.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the said order was passed on an off date without any knowledge of the petitioners as well as the proforma defendant No. 7. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the Page No.# 6/8

learned Senior Counsel for the proforma defendant No. 7 also endorses the said submission.

10. This Court has duly perused the order dated 20.12.2024 which have been impugned in the instant proceedings and heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

11. From the materials on record, it transpires that the order of injunction dated 04.04.2024 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024; the relevant portion of which have been reproduced herein above, was only limited to the maintenance of status quo in respect to the firm which had nothing to do with the proforma defendant No. 7. This aspect of the matter is seen to be an admitted position inasmuch as the plaintiff by filing the petition which have been registered and numbered as petition No. 5763/2024 on 19.12.2024, had also sought that the order of status quo which was passed on 04.04.2024 in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 should also be extended against the proforma defendant No. 7. On the date on which the said application was filed, both the principal defendants as well as the proforma defendant No. 7 sought for time as is evident from the order dated 19.12.2024 and the learned Trial Court vide that order had fixed on 10.02.2025 for hearing on the petition No. 5763/2024 and petition No. 5089/2024.

12. It shocks and surprises this Court as to how the impugned order was passed immediately on the next date when the case was never fixed. Apart from that, it also surprises this Court to take note of that the directions to maintain status quo, had been written in hand. In addition to that, this Court also takes note of that the learned Trial Court have directed even the proforma defendant Page No.# 7/8

No. 7 to maintain status quo which also amounts to an injunction without assigning any reasons. This Court further takes note at this stage the submission of Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel representing the proforma defendant No. 7 to the effect that the directions so issued to maintain status quo is in conflict with the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 85/2022. It surprises this Court that the learned Trial Court did not at all consider the said aspect and directed the maintenance of status quo against the proforma defendant No. 7 in such a casual and mechanical manner.

13. This Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory in nature. It is well settled that when an order is passed by the Subordinate Judiciary upon which this Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction and it shocks the judicial conscience of this Court, it is the Constitutional duty that this Court has to pass appropriate directions in order that confidence upon the Courts are restored and the Rule of Law adhered to. The analysis made above would show that the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 on the face of it negates the established judicial norms. The learned Trial Court could not have passed the impugned order behind the back of the contesting parties on an off date in the manner done by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court interferes with the order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 and set aside the same.

14. This Court further directs the learned Trial Court to hear the petitions being petition No. 5763/2024 as well as petition No. 5089/2024 in terms with the order dated 19.12.2024 and thereupon decide the same at the earliest and preferably within one month from 10.02.2025. Additionally taking into Page No.# 8/8

consideration the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code, the injunction proceedings being Misc (J) Case No. 53/2024 be also disposed off within the aforesaid period.

15. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant