Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010148932024 2025:GAU-AS:17828 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/60/2024 BIPUL PHUKAN AND ANR S/O PHILESHWAR PHUKAN RESIDENT OF GILLAPUKHURI ROAD, PO , PS AND DIST TINSUKIA ASSAM 2: SRI DEEPAK DEKA S/O AKON DEKA RESIDENT OF KAKOPATHAR PO AND PS KAKOPATHAR DIST TINSUKIA ASSA VERSUS AJOY KUMAR GOGOI AND ANR S/O LATE DURGADHAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF NEHRU PARK, JORHAT, ASSAM 2:DR. SUNITI GOGOI W/O SRI AJOY KUMAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF NEHRU PARK JORHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MS N BURAGOHAIN,MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : MR T R SEN (R-1), MS M ROY,MR. D P CHALIHA,MS K TAYE(R-1) WITH I.A. (Civil) Case No. 2236/2024 In Page No.# 2/7 FAO Case No. 60/2024 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 12.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants, impugning the order dated 13.05.2024, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Tinsukia in Misc.(J) Case No. 118/2023, arising out of Title Suit No. 53/2024. By the impugned order, the prayer for grant of temporary injunction made by the appellants during the pendency of the suit was rejected by the trial court. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present appellants, as plaintiffs, had filed the Title Suit No. 53/2023, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia praying for relief of specific performance of contract (agreement to sale) entered into between the appellants and the respondent No. 2 in respect of plot of land described in schedule-‘A-1’ and ‘B’ to the plaint. Page No.# 3/7 4. It is contended in the plaint that the consideration amount agreed to, by the parties to the aforesaid sale, was Rs. 68 Lakhs and on the date of entering into the agreement of sale, i.e. on 05.03.2021 an advance amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs was paid by the appellants to the respondent No. 1. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 53/2023, the appellants had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code praying for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 and his representatives/dependants/agents etc. from transferring conveying, selling oralienating schedule- ‘B’ land and schedule ‘A-1’ land to any third party. However, by the impugned order dated 13.05.2024, passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 118/2023, the trial court rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction and hence, the appellants are before this court being aggrieved by the impugned order. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial court had erred while passing the impugned order and rejecting the prayer for grant of temporary injunction to the appellants in as much as though it was held by the trial court that there is a prima-facie case for filing the application for temporary injunction, however, only because of the fact that there was a stipulation in the agreement itself that the Page No.# 4/7 opposite party shall have to refund the advance amount, along with adequate compensation to the appellants in the event of failure on the part of the owner of the land to execute sale deed and to honour his part of the agreement of sale, the prayer for grant of temporary injunction was rejected. 7. He submits that the trial court did not take into consideration the fact that if the suit land is alienated by the owner of the land, he may not be in a position to repay back the advance amount taken by him as well as compensation claimed by the present appellants in the suit. Hence, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and grant of temporary injunction to the appellants, as prayed for, in respect of schedule ‘A-1’ and schedule ‘B’ land. 8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction to the present appellants as they failed to make out a case for such a relief. He submits that the respondents are ready to execute sale deed in respect of schedule ‘B’ land. However, as regards schedule ‘A-1’ land is concerned, same was not the subject- matter of the agreement to sale and therefore, the respondents cannot be compelled to execute a sale deed in respect of the said land. 9. Moreover, he submits that the trial court rightly considered the stipulation contained in the agreement to sale Page No.# 5/7 that in event of failure to execute the sale deed the advance consideration money would be returned back to the appellants, along with the compensation amount and hence there would be no irreparable loss to the appellants, if the temporary injunction as prayed for is not granted to them. He further submits that the appellants have also failed to show any materials which would show that there was any attempt or any endeavour by the respondents to alienate or to sell the suit land to any third party. He submits that apart from mere apprehension that the respondents may sell the said land there is no material on record to substantiate the said apprehension. Hence, he submits that the trial court was correct in passing the impugned order. 10. He submits that the appellants have failed to satisfy regarding presence of essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction and as such, the impugned order does not warrants any interference by this court. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the materials on record, including the impugned orders. 12. On perusal of records, it appears that the agreement to sale between the parties was executed in respect of schedule ‘A’ and schedule ‘B’ land. The question as to whether Page No.# 6/7 the respondents may be compelled to execute sale deed in respect of schedule ‘A-1’ land is the subject-matter of the title suit which is pending before the trial court, hence, this court is refraining itself from making any observation in that regard. 13. However, it appears that there is a stipulation in the agreement entered between the parties that in event of failure to execute the sale deed as agreed upon between the parties, the respondents shall return the advance consideration amount taken by them along with an amount of compensation. Hence, this court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the observation made by the trial court in the impugned order that the appellants would not suffer any irreparable loss if the temporary injunction as prayed for is not granted. 14. Moreover, apart from mere apprehension that the respondents may sell the scheduled suit land, there is no other materials on record to suggest that there is any endeavour or any attempt in that regard by the respondents. Mere apprehension, without any basis for the same, is not enough for grant of relief of temporary injunction as prayed for by the appellants. On that count also, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 15. This court therefore, is, of the considered opinion that the trial court was correct in holding that the appellants have failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction Page No.# 7/7 against the respondents in respect of schedule ‘A-1’ and schedule ‘B’ property by restraining them from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the title suit. More so, as already stated, there is no basis or no material on record for such an apprehension by the appellants. 16. This appeal is, therefore, found devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed with cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant