An appeal against an interim injunction order was dismissed for lacking reasons and violating the mandate of Order 39 Rule 3A for disposal within 30 days. The High Court quashed the lower court's defective order.
Order dated 02.05.2022 is set aside; RFA No.15 of 2022 disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC030001752022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RFA/15/2022
Sh. K. Lalchhuanliana Ramthar Veng, Aizawl
VERSUS
Sh. Lalrammawia and 5 Ors. Armed Veng South, Aizawl 2:Secretary Revenue Department
3:Director
Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt.
4:Settlement Officer
Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt.
5:Surveyor
Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt.
6:Sh. Lalchungnung
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr L H Lianhrima Sr. Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii for R1
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG
ORDER
Date : 02-06-2022
Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhriima, learned senior counsel for the appellant alongwith Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the opposite party.
This is an appeal submitted under section 17(2) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 read with Section 96 of the CPC against the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District in CMA No. 236 of 2022 arising out of Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Order dated 02.05.2022 is to be set aside on the grounds that it is not in accordance with Order 39 Rule 3A of the CPC wherein, it has been stated that such applications for interim injunction should be disposed of within 30 (thirty) days. However, the said impugned order clearly shows that the next date for hearing for submission of W.O has been fixed on 02.06.2022 which, clearly indicates that the injunction granted in the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 cannot be disposed of within the prescribed 30 (thirty) days as per Order 39 Rule 3A of the CPC.
He has further pointed out that the order itself is defective for the reasons that, no reasons have been highlighted for passing the impugned order and in support of his submission he has been relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Rayat Shikshan Sanstha .Vs. Suneel Shiva Gaikwad reported in (2010) 15
Page No.# 3/5
SCC 539 para 4 and in the case of Ramramewshwari Devi and Others vs. Nirmala Devi and Others reported in 2011) 8 SCC 249 para 44
Ms. Jacinta Zothanmawii, learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hands submits that the appeal petition is defective since the appeal has been submitted under Section 96 of CPC which is an appeal from original decree while the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 is actually an interim injunction order.
She further submits that there is no violation of Order 39 Rule 3A, since this Court can direct the learned Lower Court to dispose the interim injunction order within 30 (thirty) days i.e today itself.
She has also further pointed out that the opposite party in this case has a prima facie case since, it can be seen from the records that the original LSC No. 199 of 1985 and the LSC No. CAD 433 of 2019 issued later to the instant appellant are different in the boundary description and because of which the dispute arose concerning the landed area within the LSC No. 199 of 1985 & LSC No. CAD 433 of 2019.
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and on perused of the documents of records, the Court finds that in view of Order 39 Rule 3A this interim application made by the present opposite party should be disposed of within 30 (thirty) days. However, the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 clearly indicates that the date for submission of W.O has been fixed on 02.06.2022, which shows that it would not be possible for this matter to be disposed of within 30 (thirty) days. No reasons is recorded for not making the endeavour to finally dispose of the application within 30
Page No.# 4/5
(thirty ) days.
It would have been a different matter is 02.06.2022 had been fixed for hearing. Under such circumstances, the conditions under Order 39 Rule 3A could have been followed.
The court also finds that the impugned order dated 02.05.2022 itself cannot be sustainable for the reasons that the learned Lower Court has not mentioned any reasons for passing the ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the defendant/opposite party from continuing construction work within the suit land.
The Apex Court in Rayat Shikshan Sanstha .Vs. Suneel Shiva Gaikwad (supra) which is as follows :
“4. It is a well-settled proposition of law that when an order of injunction is passed, the court is required to record the reasons. Similarly, when the court feels that in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, order of injunction is not necessary, it must record the reasons for doing so, taking into consideration all the relevant factors, particularly the nature of the controversy involved.”
And in the case of Ramramewshwari Devi and Others vs. Nirmala Devi and
Others reported in ( 2011) 8 SCC 249 para 44 which is as follows :
’ 44. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals that ex-parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the
Page No.# 5/5
court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.”
Thus in view of the decisions of the Apex Court and the reasons mentioned above, this Court finds it fit to set aside the order dated 02.05.2022 and accordingly RFA No.15 of 2022 stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an interim injunction order that is not disposed of within 30 days violates Order 39 Rule 3A of the CPC?
Whether an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order must record reasons for passing to be sustainable?
Whether the remedy of appeal under Section 96 of CPC is maintainable against an interim injunction order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rayat Shikshan Sanstha .Vs. Suneel Shiva GaikwadApplied¶35
(2010) 15 SCC 539 · Who else cites this
Ramramewshwari Devi and Others vs. Nirmala Devi and OthersApplied¶37
(2011) 8 SCC 249 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Lalchhuanliana Ramthar Veng
Lalrammawia
Secretary Revenue Department
Director Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt.
Settlement Officer Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt.
Surveyor Land Revenue and Settlement Deptt.
Marli Vankung
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
