Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040001252025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/21/2025 M/s Bhoomi Construction and Interiors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:through its proprietor Shri Manmohan Singh 65 Gautam Nagar New Delhi 110049 VERSUS Licha Tupa Age: 0 Occupation : Address:026 Sumpa Complex Lower Sector A Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : G Kato, Gedo Kato Advocate for the Respondent : Gallen Taloh, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. G. Kato, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for stay of impugned order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia, Papum Pare District in I.A. No. 87/2024, arising out of Misc.(J) No. 01/2024 in Commercial Suit No. 01/2024. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Kato, learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant had entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction work of commercial building, but without any ground or issuing notice, he was outstated from the said construction work in the year 2024 and for which, he instituted a suit before the Court of learned District Judge, Yupia, which is numbered as Commercial Suit No. 01/2024, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent (Defendant in the suit), his affiliates, officers, agents and any other persons acting on or their behalf from carrying out any further construction work in connection with Sumpa Complex. Accordingly, the learned Court below, vide order dated 24.04.2024, passed an ex-parte interim temporary injunction order in favour of the present applicant restraining the respondent and his associates not to carry out any construction activities until further order. Thereafter, the present respondent filed a petition in connection with Misc (J) Case No. Page No.# 3/6 01/2024, praying for vacation of the interim order of injunction passed in favour of the present applicant, which was registered as I.A. No. 87/2024, and vide order dated 12.11.2024, the learned District Judge, Yupia dismissed the injunction petition, which was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 01/2024, and thereby vacated the interim injunction order. 4. Mr. Kato further submitted that the learned Court below while passing the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 had considered that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss lies in favour of the respondent, but the said observation was made without any further explanation as to how the balance of convenience and irreparable loss lies in favour of the respondent. Thus, he submitted that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily and casually without discussing the 3(three) golden principles. Further he submitted that the order of injunction was passed on 24.04.2024, but the petition for vacation of the injunction order was filed by the respondent only in the month of August, 2024 and as there was no urgency, no prejudice was caused to the present respondent. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia, suffers from gross illegality and irregularity, which is liable to be set aside, and therefore, he prayed for stay of the impugned order till disposal of the connected appeal. 5. In this context, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the agreement between the parties was made in the year 2021 and as per the said agreement, the construction work was to be completed by December, 2023. However, despite the lapse of time, the applicant failed to complete the construction work and as of November, 2023, only 60% of the work was completed resulting in the applicant’s failure to fulfill the contractual obligations Page No.# 4/6 within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the agreement which was valid until December, 2023 had already expired and no contractual obligations exists at this stage. Further, he submitted that from the prayer made by the applicant in the suit, it is seen that the prayer was for a decree claiming Rs. 1,30,41,524/- towards the costs and damage incurred by the applicant for cancellation of the agreement. Further, the applicant also prayed for restoring the possession of machinery and equipment’s and also for permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction etc. Thus, he submitted that the said Commercial Suit is instituted only claiming damage of Rs. 1,30,41,524/- and hence, there cannot be any irreparable loss or injury to the present applicant for vacating the injunction order. 6. Further Mr. Dubey submitted that the work has already been completed and hence, restraining the respondent from doing further construction work also does not arise at this stage and no prejudice is caused to the applicant as in the Commercial Suit the applicant only claimed for damage to the tune of more than Rs. 1 Crore. He also submitted that if any new cause of action arises after dismissal of the earlier injunction petition, the applicant is at liberty to file a fresh injunction petition before the learned Trial Court below, but staying/suspending the order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court below, will not serve any purpose. More so, he submitted that the learned Trial Court below had passed a detail order considering all aspects of the case including the 3(three) golden principles. Accordingly, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the present application. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also perused the application and other annexures filed along with the Page No.# 5/6 application vis-à-vis the order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia in I.A. No. 87/2024 arising out of Misc (J) Case No. 01/2024. 8. It is a fact that both the parties entered into an agreement for construction of commercial building and pursuant to that agreement, the applicant was to complete the construction work by December, 2023. But till November, 2023, only 60% of the work was being completed and thereafter, there was no extension of time limit and the agreement was also not in existence as it was already been expired. The applicant herein accordingly approached the learned Trial Court below and filed a Commercial Suit claiming damages of Rs. 1,30,41,524/- along with other reliefs and thereafter, he also obtained interim temporary injunction order in his favour, whereby the respondent along with his associates were restrained from carrying out any construction activities until further order. But from the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is seen that the construction work has already been completed and hence, further restrainment of the respondent will not serve any purpose as no construction work is left to be completed. However, the applicant had already approached the learned Trial Court below praying for a decree for damages along with other reliefs, which is yet to be adjudicated before the learned Trial Court below. 9. Further, on perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court below, it is seen that all the issues have been discussed and dealt with by the learned Trial Court below and it is observed that balance of convenience and irreparable loss lies in favour of the respondent. It is also observed by the learned Court below that as the damages have already been claimed by the petitioner, there cannot be any irreparable loss for the petitioner. Thus, it is seen that after Page No.# 6/6 discussing all the 3(three) golden principles, the learned Trial Court below had dismissed the petition for injunction and thereby vacated the interim injunction order. 10. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, I do not find any reason to pass an order for staying the impugned order dated 12.11.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Yupia, Papum Pare District in I.A. No. 87/2024, arising out of Misc.(J) No. 01/2024 in Commercial Suit No. 01/2024, at this stage. Resultantly, the present interlocutory application stands dismissed. However, the applicant will get the opportunity to raise all those issues while hearing the connected appeal, being FAO No. 01/2025. More so, the applicant is also at liberty to file a fresh injunction application before the learned Court below if any subsequent cause of action arises. 11. In terms of above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant