Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010205492024 2025:GAU-AS:5467 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/398/2024 NASIR UDDIN AHMED S/O- LATE BILAYAT ALI MUNSHI, VILL.- UDAY NAGAR, GOALPARA TOWN, WARD NO. 14, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783121. VERSUS URMILA DEVI PODDAR AND 3 ORS W/O- LATE ANIL PODDAR, R/O- VILL.- UDAY NAGAR, GOALPARA, WARD NO. 14, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783121. 2:MOHINI PODDAR D/O- LATE ANIL PODDAR R/O- VILL.- UDAY NAGAR GOALPARA WARD NO. 14 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121. 3:RETIKA PODDAR D/O- LATE ANIL PODDAR R/O- VILL.- UDAY NAGAR GOALPARA WARD NO. 14 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121. 4:GITIKA PODDAR D/O- LATE ANIL PODDAR Page No.# 2/5 R/O- VILL.- UDAY NAGAR GOALPARA WARD NO. 14 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783121. 5:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA PIN- 783101. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BALIJANA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. BALADMARI P.S. AND DIST. GOALPARA PIN- 783121 ASSA Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. A Roshid Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. TR Gogoi, Government Advocate, Assam Mr. SK Poddar for respondent Nos.1 to 4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 05.05.2025 Heard Mr. A Roshid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. SK Poddar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Page No.# 3/5 respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. TR Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the State respondents being the respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been invoked challenging the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Goalpara, in Misc.Appeal No.4/2023 whereby the said appeal was dismissed, thereby affirming the rejection of the application for temporary injunction being Misc. (J).Case No.24/2022 arising out of Title Suit No.47/2022 by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, Goalpara. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that he had purchased a plot of land more specifically described in Schedule A to the plaint in Title Suit No.47/2022. In the said suit, it was mentioned that the Schedule B Schedule land, which is a plot of land ad measuring 7 feet in breadth and 175 feet in length was used by the petitioner along with one Abul Kashem Paramanik since the year 1999. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submitted an application before the proforma defendant No.3 seeking demarcation of the land and for stoppage of the drain and the proforma defendant No.3 had passed an order on 05.04.2022 and it is under such circumstances, the said suit was filed seeking declaration of the petitioner’s right, title and interest over the suit land, more specifically, described in Schedule-B to the plaint; for declaration that the defendants have no right, title and interest over the schedule land; for a decree declaring that the other defendants have no right to disturb the plaintiff from enjoyment of the suit land etc. Page No.# 4/5 4. In the said suit, the petitioner as plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from invading the plaintiff's right of enjoyment over the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiff of the peaceful enjoyment of the suit land. Along with the said suit, an injunction application was filed which was registered and numbered as Misc.(J)Case No.24/2022 seeking an ad-interim temporary injunction as well as mandatory injunction restraining the opposite parties/proforma opposite parties from disturbing the opposite parties/petitioner in enjoying the suit land until further order(s). 5. The respondents herein, who were the defendants in the suit as well as the opposite party in the injunction application filed objections and pursuant thereto, the learned Trial Court after taking into account the three golden principles for grant of an injunction vide the order dated 01.09.2023 rejected the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner had failed to show the existence of the balance of convenience in his favour as well as the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, harm and injury. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Misc.Appeal No.4/2023 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Goalpara. The said appeal was heard by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Goalpara and vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 dismissed the said appeal and it is under such circumstances, the present application has been filed. Page No.# 5/5 7. This Court has enquired with Mr. A. Roshid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to what right the petitioner has in respect to the Schedule-B land. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had been using the said land since the year 1999 and any disturbance in the possession over the said land would affect the rights of the petitioner. 8. This Court has also taken note of that the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court had duly taken note of the principles for grant of an injunction and had concurrently come to a finding that the petitioner does not fulfill the three golden principles for grant of an injunction. The scope of interference to those findings exercised by the Court of the first instance which has been confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court in the opinion of this Court is very limited. 9. This Court has also not found that the impugned orders so passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court are in any manner unreasonable, perverse, irrational as well as violates the mandate of the principles for grant of an injunction. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order, for which, the instant petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant