Rathin Talukdar vs Jayanta Sarmah And 6 Ors on 6 January, 2026

                                                                Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010000312026




                                                         undefined

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

                        Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/15/2026
                                          in
                                      FAO/1/2026


         RATHIN TALUKDAR
         S/O CHANDRAKANTA TALUKDAR
         R/O HOUSE NO. 5
         MANIKANCHAN PATH
         BELTOLA
         GUWAHATI-781028
         DIST- KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM


          VERSUS

         JAYANTA SARMAH AND 6 ORS.
         S/O LATE TRAILOKYA DEV SARMAH
          R/O BISHNU RABHA PATH
          KAMAR CHUBURI
          TEZPUR
          DIST- SONITPUR
          ASSAM

         2:MUKUT SARMA
         S/O LATE TRAILOKYA DEV SARMAH
          R/O BISHNU RABHA PATH
          KAMAR CHUBURI
         TEZPUR
          DIST- SONITPUR
         ASSAM

         3:RUBIMONI SARMAH
         DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE TRAILOKYA DEV SARMAH
         R/O FLAT-5B
         PURBASHA APARTMENT
                                                          Page No.# 2/9

SONI RAM BORA ROAD
NEAR BORA SERVICE
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.

4:RIJU DEVI
DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE TROILOKYA DEV SARMAH
R/O BISHNU RABHA PATH
KAMAR CHUBURI
TEZPUR
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM

5:JONALI DEVI
D/O LATE TROILOKYA DEV SARMAH
R/O SKUAST-J
R.S. PURA
RANBIR SINGH PORA
JAMMU
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
PIN-181102

6:KAMAL DAS
S/O JAGAT CHANDRA DAS
R/O KRISHNA NAGAR
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-781029
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM

7:SHILPIRANI CHETIA PHUKAN
W/O KAMAL DAS
R/O KRISHNA NAGAR
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-781029
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. R ALI
Advocate for : appearing for JAYANTA SARMAH AND 6 ORS.
                                                                                   Page No.# 3/9


                                          BEFORE
                  HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

06-01-2026

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed under order XXXIX Rules, 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC praying for grant of ex-parte ad-interim temporary injunction, pending disposal of the connected appeal.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Ali, learned counsel that the present applicant as plaintiff had instituted a Title Suit being T.S. No.817/2025 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, wherein the appellant had sought for a decree of declaration that Registered Sale Deed bearing No. 20733 dated 30.09.2023 (Registered on 09.10.2023) is valid/subsisting and same is also binding upon the defendants, specially defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and defendant No.6 in respect of the suit land along with other relief including the declaration that the NOC/Sale permission dated 22.10.2025 obtained by the defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of the defendant/respondent No.7 is invalid/illegal and violates the terms of the Deed of Agreement No. 20733 dated 30.09.2023. In the said suit, it is further prayed for execution of the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of half share of the plaintiff out of the suit land which is described in the plaint itself. Along with the said Title Suit, one misc case was also filed under order XXXIX Rules, 1 and 2 read with Sections 94 and 151 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction and ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from selling/transferring/alienating suit land on the basis of the NOC/Sale permission dated

22.10.2025 in favour of the respondent No.7 or any 3 rd party pending disposal of the suit.

4. Further he submitted that the learned Trial Court below after hearing the Page No.# 4/9

arguments put forwarded by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant passed the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 and rejected the prayer of ex parte ad interim temporary injunction with an observation that though the prima facie case is in favour of the present applicant/appellant, but declined to pass any order of ex parte ad interim temporary injunction without hearing the other side. It is also observed by the learned Addl. District Judge that the applicant/appellant failed to produce any document in support of his case.

5. He further submitted that in the said order though it has been discussed by the leaned Addl. District Judge that prima facie case lies in favour of the applicant, but failed to made any discussion in regard to the other two principles, i.e., irreparable loss and balance of convenience in the said order. The order has been passed very casually and without even discussing the three golden principles for granting injunction and hence aggrieved to the said order of injunction, the connected appeal has been filed with further prayer for granting ex parte ad interim temporary injunction against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 from executing any sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 on the strength of the NOC which has already been obtained in the month of October, 2025.

6. Mr. Ali, learned counsel further submitted that the applicant had already filed the agreement for sale which was executed on 30.09.2023, and was registered on 09.10.2023.

7. Mr. Ali, learned counsel further submitted that after the execution of the sale agreement and inspite of depositing the money, the sale permission was obtained in favour of the respondent No.7 and respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is in the process for executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 as the NOC has already been obtained in her favour by violating every terms and conditions of the sale agreement wherein the applicant not only entered into the agreement, but also paid a suitable amount towards sale consideration.

Page No.# 5/9

8. He further submitted that from the specific information it has come to the knowledge of the applicant that the respondent No. 5 is travelling from Jammu for the purpose of execution of the sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 7 on the basis of sale permission/NOC which is obtained on 22.10.2025, taking the advantage of refusal of the ad interim temporary injunction by the learned Trial Court.

9. He further submitted that in the event of executing such sale deed at this stage, there will be multiplicity of the proceeding and applicant will have to amend the plaint to challenge the said illegal transfer of land in favour of the respondent No.7. Accordingly, he submitted that the present applicant not only has a prima facie case in his favour, but the balance of convenience as well as irreparable loss also lies in favour of the present applicant for grant of temporary injunction.

10. Mr. Ali, learned counsel submitted that at the time of filing the petition for injunction, he submitted all the relevant documents including the sale agreement as well as the NOC which is already obtained by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of respondent No.7 for execution of the sale deed. But, without considering those documents and without even discussing the three golden principles for grant of injunction, the order has been passed arbitrarily, rejecting the prayer for ex parte ad interim temporary injunction.

11. Mr. Ali cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Coca Cola Company and others reported in 1995 AIR SC 1938 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that while passing the order of injunction, the Court had to consider three golden principles, the prime facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss/injury and very object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against any injury by violation of right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. Mr. Ali basically relied on para 46, which reads as under:-

Page No.# 6/9

"46. The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion of the court. While exercising the discretion the court. While exercising the discretion the court applies the following tests - (i) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case; (ii) whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for interlocutory injunction is disallowed. The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of the legal right assailed by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during the period before that uncertainty could be resolved. The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection has, however, to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience' lies.

[see:Wander Ltd.& Anr. v,. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (suoo) Scc 727 at pp. 731- 32]. In order to protect the defendant while granting an interlocutory injunction in his favour the Court can require the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking so that the defendant can be adequately compensated if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial."

12. Mr. Ali further submitted that the learned Trial Court also did not pass any reasoned order while dismissing the prayer for ex parte ad interim injunction even though it is held by the learned Trial Court below that there is prima facie case lies in favour of the plaintiff. In that regard also he relied on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla and Brothers reported in 2010 (3) Supreme 98 wherein it has been held that:--

"Clarity of thought leads to proper reasoning and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120, the Court went to the extent of observing that "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are really linchpin to administration of justice. They are link between the mind of the decision taker and the controversy in question. To justify our conclusion, reasons are essential. Absence of reasoning would render the judicial order liable to interference by Page No.# 7/9

the higher Court. Reasons are the soul of the decision and its absence would render the order open to judicial chastism. The consistent judicial opinion is that every order determining rights of the parties in a Court of law ought not to be recorded without supportive reasons. Issuing reasoned order is not only beneficial to the higher Courts but is even of great utility for providing public understanding of law and imposing self-discipline in the Judge as their discretion is controlled by well established norms. The contention raised before us that absence of reasoning in the impugned order would render the order liable to be set aside, particularly, in face of the fact that the learned Judge found merit in the writ petition and issued rule, therefore, needs to be accepted. We have already noticed that orders even at interlocutory stages may not be as detailed as judgments but should be supported by reason howsoever briefly stated. Absence of reasoning is impermissible in judicial pronouncement. It cannot be disputed that the order in question substantially affect the rights of the parties. There is an award in favour of the workmen and the management had prayed for stay of the operation of the award."

13. Mr. Ali, learned counsel further submitted that if the injunction is not granted at this stage, restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 in executing the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7 on the strength of NOC which has already been obtained by the respondents, the very purpose of filing the connected FAO will also become infructuous.

14. Accordingly, Mr. Ali submitted that this petition may be considered and the respondents may be restrained from executing the Registered Sale Deed in favour of the respondent No.7.

15. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition as well as the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

16. It is seen that while passing the order of injunction, the learned Trial Court below had opined that there is prima facie case in favour of the applicant, however, the prayer for ex parte ad interim injunction was rejected by the Court only considering the fact that the plaintiff failed to produce any documents in support of his plea/claim and hence, without hearing the other side, the learned Trial Court had declined to pass any order of injunction in favour of the applicant/appellant and Page No.# 8/9

accordingly the case was fixed for SR/objection.

17. While passing the order, the learned Trial Court also relied on a decision in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambala Choksi and Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 913, wherein also it is observed that Court must also be satisfied of irreparable injury and balance of convenience while granting the order of injunction even if the prima facie case lies in favour of the petitioner. But on perusal of the case record, it is seen that at the time of filing the injunction petition, it was also supported with the copy of the registered sale deed and it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the NOC which was obtained by the defendant/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in the month of October, 2025 has also been annexed.

18. From the copy of the sale deed it is also seen that there is mentioned about the monetary transaction between the parties and as per the sale agreement the plaintiff/petitioner was entitled for half of the share of the scheduled land. It also reveals from the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as from the pleadings made in the petition that the sale deed may be executed in favour of the respondent No.7 on the strength of the NOC which has already been obtained by the party though, the respondent No.7 was not a party in the said agreement and the sale agreement was seems to be made in favour of the present applicant as well as for the respondent No.6. At the same time, it is also seen that if the sale deed is executed in favour of the respondent No. 7, the very purpose of filing the present FAO will also become infructuous and in the meantime, there is also probability of arising of multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, it is seen that not only a prima facie case lies in favour of the petitioner, but the balance of convenience as well as irreparable loss, the other two golden principles also lies in favour of the present applicant/appellant. In the same time, till disposal of the connected FAO if the respondents are injuncted/restrained from executing the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.7, will not cause any prejudice to the other side and they will get the Page No.# 9/9

ample opportunity of hearing.

19. So considering all the aspects of the case as well as urgent nature of the case, this Court is of the opinion, the applicant is entitled to get a relief of an ex parte ad interim temporary injunction and accordingly, the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is hereby restrained from sale/transfer of the scheduled land in favour of the respondent No.7 or to any other party, till disposal of the present interlocutory application.

20. Issue notice to the respondents, through speed post as well as through usual process.

21. List this matter immediately after the Bihu Vacation, on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant