Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010028082025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/43/2025 SRI GOBINDA PODDAR S/O LATE MADHAB PODDAR R/O VILLAGE MOWAMARI P.O. MANGALDAI MOUZA RANGAMATI P.S. MANGALDAI DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784125. VERSUS HIREN MANDAL S/O LATE MOTILAL MANDAL R/O VILLAGE MOWAMARI MOUZA- RANGAMATI P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI DISTRICT DARRANG, ASSAM 2:SANTI MANDAL S/O RAICHARAN MANDAL 3:SATYA MANDAL S/O SANTI MANDAL BOTH R/O VILLAGE BAKHPORI MOUZA- RANGAMATI P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI DISTRICT DARRANG ASSAM 4:BHAGYA MANDAL S/O LATE NUWAI MANDAL Page No.# 2/6 5:BIDHAR ROY S/O LATE PREMA CHAND ROY 6:BABULAL SARKAR S/O LATE PHEDU SARKAR 7:KRISHNA SARKAR S/O KESHAB SARKAR 8:PURNA MANDAL S/O LATE CHARAN MANDAL 9:PREMA MANDAL S/O SANTI MANDAL 10:NIKHIL MANDAL S/O JILMOHAN MANDAL 11:NIRAN MANDAL S/O SRI HARLAL MANDAL 12:POLAR MANDAL S/O SIDAM MANDAL 13:GAJEN MALAKAR S/O GAUR MALAKAR 14:KALU BAIRAGI S/O BUBARAM BAIRAGI 15:GAURANGA ROY S/O GAUR ROY 16:BHASAN MANDAL S/O RABI MANDAL 17:NANI GOPAL MANDAL S/O RABI MANDAL 18:PARESH MANDAL S/O RABI MANDAL 19:SUBHASH MANDAL S/O PHULCHAND MANDAL Page No.# 3/6 20:MADHAB MANDAL S/O SANTI MANDAL ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOWAMARI MOUZA RANGAMATI PO AND PS MANGALDAI DIST DARRANG ASSAM 21:ANANDA PODDAR S/O LATE MADHAB PODDAR 22:JOGAMAYA PODDAR W/O LATE MADHAB MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOWAMARI MOUZA RANGAMATI PO AND PS MANGALDAI DIST DARRANG ASSAM 23:THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REP BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG ASSAM 24:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER REVENUE DARRANG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DEKA, MR R HOQUE,MS D DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S CHAUHAN (R-1 to 22), M. BORUAH(R-1 to 22),B CHOWHAN(R-1 to 22),R DEB(R-1 to 22),MR. P MAZUMDER(R-1 to 22) Page No.# 4/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 10.11.2025 Heard Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chauhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mangaldoi, Darang, in Misc Appeal No. 02/2025. The present petitioner filed a suit being T.S. No. 11/2023 against the respondents claiming certain reliefs. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC being Misc. (J) Case No. 134/2024 was also filed. After considering the three principles for granting injunction, the trial court allowed the prayer of injunction. The respondents filed an appeal before the court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mangaldai, Darrang being Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025. Deliberating upon the provisions of law as laid down in Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC, the learned appellate court stayed the injunction order passed by the trial court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both the sides. In Mool Chand Yadav and another vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd., Rampur and Others, reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid a caveat that requirement of staying a order while an appeal is admitted, it to be made only when such order has serious civil consequences. In the case of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel reported in (2006) 8 SCC 726, the Supreme Court has held as under: “ Appellate court's jurisdiction to interfere with orders of the trial judge Page No.# 5/6 125. We are not oblivious that normally the appellate court would be slow to interfere with the discretionary jurisdiction of the trial court. 126. The grant of an interlocutory injunction is in exercise of discretionary power and hence, the appellate courts will usually not interfere with it. However, the appellate courts will substitute their discretion if they find that discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or where the court has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. This principle has been stated by this Court time and time again. [See for example Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. [1990 Supp SCC 727] , Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah [(2002) 3 SCC 65] and Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai [(2006) 5 SCC 282 : (2006) 5 Scale 263] .] 127. The appellate court may not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion.” Reverting to the case in hand, on a plaint reading of the order of the appellate court, it appears that the learned trial court has failed to apply judicial mind while staying the injunction order passed by the trial court. The grant of an interlocutory injunction is in exercise of discretionary power and the appellate court will not usually interfere with it. The appellate court will substitute their discretion if they find that the discretion exercised by the trial court is arbitrarily, capricious and perverse or where the trial court has ignored the settled principle of law regarding grant or refusal of temporary injunction. In the case in hand, the trial court has analyzed all the principles regarding grant of temporary injunction and thereafter passed the order of injunction. The learned appellate court, without exercise judicial mind had stayed the injunction order. Therefore, the Page No.# 6/6 revision petition is allowed. The stay order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mangaldoi, Darang, in Misc Appeal No. 02/2025 is set aside. The learned appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal after hearing both sides, preferably within next 6 (six) months after receipt of this order. The civil revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant