Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010158382025 2025:GAU-AS:11508 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/45/2025 SHYAMALI BORAH D/O. LT. SUREN KALITA, H/NO. 8, SWAHID PATH JATIA, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-781019. VERSUS ADH ASSOCIATE AND ANR. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT RAHUL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, BHOLA BABA PATH, JAYANAGAR ROAD, SIX MILE, GUWAHATI-781011, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI BIMAL JYOTI PATHAK, S/O. LT. DEBENDRA NATH PATHAK 2:BIMAL JYOTI PATHAK MANAGING PARTNER OF ADH ASSOCIATE RAHUL COMPLEX 4TH FLOOR BHOLA BABA PATH JAYANAGAR ROAD SIX MILE GUWAHATI-781011 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N NATH, MR. T BORKOTOKY,MR N TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR, MS. S. TODI,MS T J SAHEWALLA,MR M SAHEWALLA,MR G N SAHEWALLA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 28.08.2025 Heard Mr. N. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. Page No.# 2/7 2. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order, dated 27-06-2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, in Misc.(J) Case No. 595/2025, arising out of Title Suit No. 380/2025, whereby, the appellant’s application preferred under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for ad-interim as well as temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties/defendants from raising any construction over the suit land, in terms of the development agreement and general power-of-attorney, dated 29-07-2024, was rejected. 3. The appellant and her brother were joint-owners of the inherited land measuring about 5.37 acres. On 29-07-2024, they entered into a registered development agreement with the respondents and subsequently, executed a general power-of-attorney, on the same day, in favour of the respondent's developer for construction of a multi-storied building complex in the same land. 4. As per the agreement, dated 29-07-2024, the developers were to pay Rs. 60,00,000/-, only, being non-adjustable amount to the land owners(Rs. 30 lakhs to be paid at the time of execution and the remaining Rs. 30 lakhs to be paid after completion of the slab casting of the building). The above-noted amount is in addition to the allotting of the entire first floor of the proposed building to the land owner. 5. The said agreement further contained that the land developers shall construct and complete the proposed building without any hindrance from anyone, including anyone claiming under the land owner within 30 months from the date of obtaining necessary building permission/No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned authority/authorities. It also contained that if the land Page No.# 3/7 developers failed to hand-over the completed entire first floor of the proposed building to the land owner within the period of 30 months, the land developers are to pay Rs. 50,000/- only as penalty, per month. 6. The respondents contended that Rs. 30,00,000/- was paid to the land owners on 29-07-2024, and thereafter, a further sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- was paid to the land owners. 7. The respondent further contended that No Objection Certificate(NOC) was obtained from the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati, after 3 months of delivery of possession of the land, in question and now, they have invested about Rs. 70,00,000/- in the project. 8. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that appellant’s brother expired on 25-03-2025, leaving the present appellant as the sole heir and the mutation is still pending. The learned counsel has further submitted that there is a vagueness in the agreement and contended that despite of assurance given by the respondents/developers for consideration of their request; the respondents, on 13-05-2025, forcibly demolished the Assam-Type house standing on the suit land, and has raised temporary construction. The appellant had filed Title Suit No. 380/2025 for cancellation of the development agreement, recovery of possession, permanent injunction and other reliefs. A separate suit for damages was also filed. Alongside, the appellant had also instituted Misc.(J) Case No. 595/2025, seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents/developers from further construction. 9. It has been contended by the Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant Page No.# 4/7 that the learned trial Court had rejected the injunction petition on the ground that the alleged possession had already taken place almost a month ago and the opposite parties/respondents are in possession of the land, in question, and there is a registered deed of agreement in their names. 10. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant, has, accordingly, contended that the impugned order, dated 27-06-2025, is arbitrary, mechanical and contrary to settled law. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the learned trial Court did not examine the three golden principles i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 11. Per contra, Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order, dated 27-06-2025, has submitted that after execution of the registered deed, lawful possession was delivered to the respondent on the date of execution of the agreement. It is further submitted that the respondents have paid the consideration amount to the appellant and thereafter, they have obtained the statutory permission/No Objection Certificate(NOC) and now, the construction of the building has commenced and a huge investment to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/- has been made. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that the appellant herself had demanded the cost of all fittings which goes to indicate that she was aware of all the developments taking place in the premises pursuant to the agreement. 12. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent, has, therefore, submitted that the ad-interim injunction application has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court and the instant appeal deserves dismissal at the threshold. Page No.# 5/7 13. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the following point emerges for determination by this Court: (i). Whether the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the appellant's application for ad-interim injunction without properly applying the settled principles? (ii). Whether interference is warranted in exercise of appellant jurisdiction? 14. It is in admitted position that the development agreement and general power-of-attorney was executed on 29-07-2024 and it was subsequently registered. The respondents/land developers have paid substantial consideration amount and claims to be in possession of the suit land in terms of the said deed of agreement. Further, the demolition of the Assam-Type house and commencement of construction has already taken place by investing huge amount of money by the respondents/land developers. 15. It appears that the appellant has disputed the validity of the agreement, alleging some vagueness and lack of consent after the death of her brother. These are matters that go to the root of the title and enforceability of the contract, which are the issues to be decided by the learned trial Court in the main suit. While it is correct that the learned trial Court’s order does not make detailed discussion of the three golden principles, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, yet, on the admitted factual matrix that the possession having been delivered under the registered deed and construction of the building already commenced by investing huge amount of money in terms of the agreement; the grant of ad-interim injunction to restrain the ongoing works, would amount to reversing the contractual possession and unsettling possession, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not permissible at the ad-interim stage. Page No.# 6/7 16. In the case of Sobita Rongphari v. Superlite ACC Blocks Industries & ors., reported in (2025) 4 GLR 673, as relied upon by the respondents; the coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court held that injunction cannot be granted to undo possession pursuant to the registered deed. 17. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Meenakshi Sandhu & ors., reported in 2018 Supreme(SC) 976, and Mahrawal Khewaji Trust(Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass, reported in 2004 Supreme(SC) 1331, as relied upon by the appellant, herein, relates to preservation of property pending litigation where the ownership and possession remained with the land owner which is distinguishable from the present case where the possession is claimed to have been transferred under the registered agreement. 18. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the learned trial Court did not elaborate the reasons; the conclusions rejecting the prayer of the appellant for ad-injunction is supported by the prevailing facts and settled law. Thus, no perversity and/or arbitrariness is shown by the learned trial Court warranting interference by this Court. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. Consequently, the impugned order, dated 27-06-2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, in Misc.(J) Case No. 595/2025, arising out of Title Suit No. 380/2025, is hereby affirmed. Page No.# 7/7 21. However, it is clarified that any further construction carried-out by the respondents, shall remain subject to the outcome of the Title Suit No. 595/2025 and the connected damages suit. 22. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant