Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010264392024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/89/2024 THE KAMRUP INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 146, ANDUL ROAD, HOWRAH KOLKATA AND WEST BEGAL 711103 AND ITS FACTORY AT GUWAHATI REFINERY, INDIAN REFINERY SITE, PO NOONMATI, GUWAHATIKAMRUP M ASSAM 781020, AND IS REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI RAMJI SINGH, DIRECTOR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BUNGALOW, QUARTER AT GUWAHATI REFINERY, INDIAN REFINERY SHE, PO NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 VERSUS THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND ANR REFINERIES DIVISION, GUWAHATI REFINERY, NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 2:THE SENIOR MANAGER THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED REFINERIES DIVISION GUWAHATI REFINERY NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA, MS K SARMA,MR H K SARMA,MD ASLAM Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3877/2024 THE KAMRUP INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 146 ANDUL ROAD HOWRAH KOLKATA AND WEST BEGAL 711103 AND ITS FACTORY AT Page No.# 2/6 GUWAHATI REFINERY INDIAN REFINERY SITE PO NOONMATI GUWAHATIKAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 AND IS REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI RAMJI SINGH DIRECTOR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BUNGALOW QUARTER AT GUWAHATI REFINERY INDIAN REFINERY SHE PO NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 VERSUS THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND ANR REFINERIES DIVISION GUWAHATI REFINERY NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 2:THE SENIOR MANAGER THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED REFINERIES DIVISION GUWAHATI REFINERY NOONMATI GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 781020 ------------ Advocate for : MR G N SAHEWALLA Advocate for : MR. JYOTIRMOY ROY (R-1 2) appearing for THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.01.2025 Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Mr. J. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. 2. As agreed by learned counsel for both the parties, it is proposed to dispose Page No.# 3/6 of this FAO No. 89/2024, along with the I.A.(Civil) No. 3877/2024, by this common order. 3. It is to be noted here that this first appeal, under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C, is directed against the order dated 29.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 1113/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 631/2024. 4. It is also to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 29.11.2024, the learned trial court has refused to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action for dispossessing the appellant/applicant from the scheduled plot of land, in pursuant to the eviction notice dated 10.07.2024. 5. In the I.A., under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., the applicant had prayed for granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents/opposite parties, their servants, workmen, employees and agents from dispossessing the appellant/applicant from the scheduled plot of land measuring 1.5 acres, covered by Dag No. 114(old)/206(new); 116(old)/209(new); and 118(old)/211 & 212(new) of village Matghoria, in the district of Kamrup (M) at Guwahati till disposal of the suit. 6. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant submits that appellant/applicant as plaintiff has instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 631/2024, for a declaration with respect to the eviction notice dated 10.07.2024, as bad/illegal and for injunction etc., against the respondents/opposite parties. Mr. Sahewalla further submits that the appellant/applicant is a public limited company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956 and that vide Lease Deed dated 04.04.1960, the respondents/opposite parties leased out the scheduled land to the appellant/applicant and after expiry of the said Lease Deed, a fresh Page No.# 4/6 Lease Deed dated 21.06.2008 was executed and in respect of the said plot of land another Lease Deed dated 04.05.2009 was executed between the parties, superseding the earlier one, dated 21.06.2008. Mr. Sahewalla further submits that the Lease Deed dated 04.05.2009, having been executed for the period, i.e. 01.07.2008 - 03.06.2033, applicability of the Lease Deed dated 21.06.2008, stands obliterated and thereafter, the respondents/opposite parties has served an eviction notice dated 10.07.2024, to the appellant/applicant, under the terms of the Lease Deed dated 21.06.2008, to vacate the scheduled lease land and to hand over the same to the respondents/opposite parties before the expiry of the tenure, within a period of six months, i.e. from 10.07.2024 - 07.01.2025. And as the said notice period will be expiring on 07.01.2025, there is urgency for granting statusquo to the parties till the matter is decided by the learned trial court otherwise the appellant/applicant will suffer irreparable loss and that a prima-facie case is there and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellant/applicant and as such, there is a requirement for granting statusquo, otherwise the title suit instituted by the appellant/applicant would be infructuous. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Roy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/opposite parties vehemently opposed the petition and submits that there is no urgency of granting any statusquo in the interlocutory application, as only notice was issued to the appellant/applicant. Mr. Roy further submits that though in the said notice reference was made to the Lease Deed dated 21.06.2008, yet, the clauses of the Lease Deed dated 04.05.2009 are same with the Lease Deed dated 21.06.2008. Mr. Roy further submits that let the learned trial court will decide the matter and the respondents/opposite parties will enter appearance there and file their objection. Mr. Roy also submits that the appellant/applicant is a defaulter and he has not paid a sum of Rs. 41,65,108.89/- and that the land is required for own use of the respondents/opposite parties and that the purpose for Page No.# 5/6 which the land was provided has already been accomplished and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the appeal and the application. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 29.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 1113/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 631/2024. 9. It appears that that the learned trial court, after hearing the appellant/applicant and after perusing the documents, decided to issue notice to the respondents/opposite parties and declined to grant any interim relief to the appellant/applicant without hearing the other side. 10. It is to be noted here that the basic facts in the appeal and the application are not disputed. The notice dated 10.07.2024, indicates that the same was issued as per clause 18 of the Lease Deed dated 21.06.2008, wherein 6 (six) months notice period was provided. It also indicates that the Clauses in Lease Deed dated 21.06.2008 and the Lease Deed dated 04.04.1960, is almost same. Further, the notice dated 10.07.2024, indicates that the plot of land is required for the purpose of construction of a new 220kV/33kV S/S landing station, which is an AIB approved project and that there is a lapse on the part of the appellant/applicant in payment of Rs. 41,65,108.89/- and the appellant/applicant was asked to vacate the said plot of land by 07.01.2025, and the said notice period will be expired tomorrow. Further, it appears that the land in question is still in possession of the appellant/applicant since 1960. 11. In view of the submission of the learned Advocates of both sides and also from the materials placed on record, it appears that there is a prima-facie case to go for trial and the balance of convenience also appears to be in favour of the Page No.# 6/6 appellant/applicant. The appellant/applicant is doing business in the said plot of land and he will suffer irreparable loss if the Lease Deed abruptly terminated on 07.01.2024, before deciding the lis by the learned trial court. 12. In view of the stand taken by the parties and in view of the pendency of the injunction petition before the learned trial court, this court is of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the learned trial court to finally decide the rights of the parties. 13. Accordingly, the matter stands remanded to the learned trial court with a direction to hear the parties on the injunction petition on the next date fixed and thereafter, to pass necessary order in accordance with law. The respondents/opposite parties shall file their objection before the learned trial court, before the next date. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances on the record, especially the fact that the notice period will be expiring tomorrow, this court is inclined to direct the parties to main statusquo upon the suit premises, as on today, till disposal of the injunction petition by the learned trial court. 15. It is further provided that the learned trial court shall dispose of the injunction petition within a period stipulated in Rule 3(A) of Order 39 of the C.P.C. JUDGE Comparing Assistant