[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Brajanath Gogoi vs M/S. Surabhi Society And 5 Ors on 7 March, 2026
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010010412013
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : FAO/17/2013
BRAJANATH GOGOI
S/O LATE GHANA KANTA GOGOI, R/O SUKAPHA NAGAR, SRIPURIA, P.O.
TINSUKIA, IN THE DIST. OF TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786145
VERSUS
M/S. SURABHI SOCIETY and 5 ORS.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
PATHALIBAM, P.O.PANITOLA,IN THE DOST. OF DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN
785675 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI PALASH RANJAN
BARUAH
2:PALASH RANJAN BARUAH
S/O SRI KHAGENDRA NATH GOGOI
R/O PATHALIBAM
PANITOLA GAON
P.S. MORAN
IN THE DIST .OF DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 785675
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THE DEPTT. OF P.W.D.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECY.
DISPUR
ASSAM
PIN 781006
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
Page No.# 2/5
P.W.D. ROADS
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN 781003
5:THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
P.W.D. JORHAT ROAD CIRCLE
P.O.JORHAT
IN THE DIST. OF JORHAT
ASSAM.
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.W.D. ROADS CHARAIDEO RURAL ROAD DIVISION
P.O. SONARI
IN THE DIST.OF SIBSAGAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D BARUAH, MR.N DUTTA,MS.B DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : C K S BARUAH, SC, PWD, MR.R DHAR(R-1&2),MR A
SAIKIA(R-1&2),MR.S SHARMA(R-1&2),MS.H TALUKDAR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 07-03-2026
Heard Ms. N. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. N. Kalita, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 to 6.
None appears on call for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read under Order XLIII Rule 2
of the CPC has been filed to assail the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia [now read as Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Tinsukia] in Misc. J Case No.18/2012 in T.S. No.21/2012 thereby dismissing the
Page No.# 3/5
Interlocutory application for ad-interim injunction.
3. In brief, the case of the appellant in the trial Court is that the
respondent no.1, represented by respondent no.2 was allotted a contract work
by the respondent nos. 3 to 6 for improvement of Sapekhati Bogabag road
under RIDF-XI of NABARD as well as construction of RCC bridge no. 5/1 on
Mischajan Road (length) 11m with approach and perfection work under Sonari
LAC in Sibsagar (now Sivasagar) district. The respondent nos.1 and 2 requested
the appellant to accept the assignment of the said works on their behalf as a
Sub-Contractor on certain terms and conditions, which were accepted by the
appellants and respondent nos. 1 and 2.
4. In course of execution of the two contract works, dispute arose
between the parties. It has been projected that at that stage when the suit was
filed, the work regarding construction of the RCC bridge was 90% completed
which includes completion of 100% RCC works and earth filling, and in respect
of the road works, the entire work was completed.
5. The dispute is projected to have arisen as the respondent nos. 1 and 2
had revoked the power of Attorney on 23.02.2012 and also issued an advocate
notice to the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the suit was filed by the appellant. Along with the suit, an
injunction application was also filed, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case
No.18/2012.
7. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order dated 06.08.2013,
arrived at a conclusion that the works which was allotted to the respondent
nos.1 and 2, and was agreed to be done by the appellant, was in public interest
and therefore, if the construction is stopped by granting injunction it would
Page No.# 4/5
cause loss to the interest of the public at large. Moreover, the learned trial Court
was of the opinion that the financial loss and injury can always be compensated
in terms of money and therefore, injunction was refused to the appellant.
8. Pursuant to order dated 22.06.2018, passed by in this appeal, the
learned Govt. Advocate has produced a copy of written instructions dated
21.08.2018, to project that the construction of the bridge was completed on
24.02.2014 and out of the contractual amount, a balance of Rs. 16,07,567.00
was left to be paid as on that date and in so far as the road work was
concerned, the work was completed on 24.07.2011 and balance amount
payable was nil.
9. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has placed her
submission in favour of an ad-interim injunction and to set aside the order
impugned in this appeal, but in view of the instructions produced by the learned
Govt. Advocate which discloses that the bridge work has already been
completed on 24.02.2014 and the road work was also completed on 24.07.2011
and only the balance amount was paid on 01.08.2018 in respect of the bridge
work was Rs.16,07,567.00, the Court is of the considered opinion that the
matter has become infructuous by efflux of time.
10. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the T.S. No.21/2012 was
instituted long back in the year 2012, there is every likelihood the suit might
have been disposed by now.
11. Therefore, on completion of work, the matter has become infructuous.
Hence, making the said instructions dated 21.08.2018 as a part of the record,
this appeal stands closed having been rendered infructuous.
12. This order shall not prejudice the appellant in any manner in the suit or
Page No.# 5/5
any appeal which may arise therefrom.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
