Dismissed

Ramesh Haloi and 5 Ors. v. Dinabandhu Das and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2020CRP(I/O)/147/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision application challenged the trial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's evidence-on-affidavit filed with an interlocutory injunction application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC without prior permission. The High Court held the rejection was within the trial Court's discretion and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The evidence-on-affidavit was left rejected and the revision application was dismissed.

Ramesh Haloi and 5 Ors. Vs Dinabandhu Das and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010082122018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 147/2018

¶5

1:RAMESH HALOI AND 5 ORS.

¶6

S/O- LATE SUREN HALOI, R/O- NALBARI TOWN, WARD NO.4, MOUZA KHATA, P.S AND DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781335

¶7

2: PRADEEP HALOI S/O- LATE SUREN HALOI R/O- NALBARI TOWN WARD NO.4 MOUZA KHATA P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335

¶8

3: PRASANA HALOI S/O- LATE SUREN HALOI R/O- NALBARI TOWN WARD NO.4 MOUZA KHATA P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335

¶9

4: PRASANTA HALOI S/O- LATE SUREN HALOI R/O- NALBARI TOWN WARD NO.4 MOUZA KHATA P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

5: PRANAB HALOI

¶12

S/O- LATE SUREN HALOI R/O- NALBARI TOWN WARD NO.4 MOUZA KHATA P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335

¶13

6: BINA HALOI

¶14

S/O- LATE SUREN HALOI R/O- NALBARI TOWN WARD NO.4 MOUZA KHATA P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 78133

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

1:DINABANDHU DAS AND 5 ORS.

¶17

S/O-LATE ABHIRAM DAS, R/O- VILL- JANIGOG, MOUZA- BHAJANI, P.S AND DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781334

¶18

2:DHARMA BAISHYA S/O- LATE PHUKAN BAISHYA R/O- VILL- JANIGOG MOUZA- BHAJANI P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781334

¶19

3:DWIJEN BAISHYA S/O- LATE PHUKAN BAISHYA R/O- VILL- JANIGOG MOUZA- BHAJANI P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781334

¶20

4:ASHOK BAISHYA S/O- LATE PHUKAN BAISHYA R/O- VILL- JANIGOG MOUZA- BHAJANI P.S AND DIST- NALBARI

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

ASSAM PIN- 781334

¶23

5:BHUPEN BAISHYA S/O- LATE PHUKAN BAISHYA R/O- VILL- JANIGOG MOUZA- BHAJANI P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781334

¶24

6:PRAGYAN DAS S/O- LATE ABHAY DAS R/O- VILL- JANIGOG MOUZA- BHAJANI P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 78133

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A C SARMA

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S N KRISHNATRAYA (R4)

¶27

BEFORE

¶28

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Date : 03-02-2020

¶31

Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6.

¶32

By this revision application, the order dated 16.02.2018 passed in Misc.(J). Case No.2/2017, arising out of T.S. Case No.6/2017 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Nalbari is under challenge.

¶33

The petitioner, besides submitting an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC for an interim injunction had filed evidence-on-affidavit. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.02.2018 rejected the petitioner’s evidence-on-affidavit by holding the same to

¶34

Page No.# 4/5

¶35

be not maintainable, while stating that the application for injunction does not give rise to a proceeding within the meaning of section 141 CPC.

¶36

The petitioner’s counsel submits that a reading of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC allows for the applicant to file an evidence-on-affidavit and that the learned trial Court has to consider the same.

¶37

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the evidence-on-affidavit should be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of hearing the injunction application.

¶38

Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 6, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner cannot file evidence-on-affidavit along with the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, without taking leave of the Court by filing an appropriate application for the same.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶40

On perusing the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, this Court finds that the Court has the discretion to allow the taking on record, the evidence-on-affidavit filed along with the application. However, the same is the discretion given to the trial Court.

¶41

Further, the petitioner did not take any permission of the trial Court before filing of the said evidence-on-affidavit. The rejection of the evidence-on-affidavit by the learned trial Court being discretionary, this Court does not find any reason to exercise its discretion in the present case. Further, it the admitted case of the parties that the suit is at the stage of the plaintiff’s evidence.

¶42

In view of the said above, the revision petition stands dismissed.

¶43

Page No.# 5/5

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Ramesh Haloi and 5 Ors. v. Dinabandhu Das and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Haloi and 5 Ors. v. Dinabandhu Das and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shams Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Maria Tanim Vs Azad Khan

Smti. Santoshi Kumari Vs Dipen Yadav

Chanchala Nath and 2 Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Jirsong Terang, Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Prabhu Deo Thakur Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.