Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010039002025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/13/2025 SHRI RATUL GOSWAMI S/O BRINDABON GOSWAMI, RESIDENT OF SHREE ENCLAVE 601 B BLOCK BELTOLA BAZAR ROAD GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS SHRI BANAJEET BARMAN AND ORS S/O LATE UDYAN NARAYAN BARMAN,, RESIDENT OF PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 2:SMTI BINAPANI BARMAN W/O LATE UDAY NARAYAN BARMAN RESIDENT OF PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 3:SMTI INDRANI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 4:SMTI RUMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 5:SMTI JULI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 6:SMTI JURI BARMAN MEDHI PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 Page No.# 2/5 7:SMTI JUMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 8:SUMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 9:SMTI KIMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 10:SMTI KIMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 11:M/S BARMAN TECH ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI BANAJEET BARMAN RESIDENT OF PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 78100 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/703/2025 SHRI RATUL GOSWAMI S/O BRINDABON GOSWAMI RESIDENT OF SHREE ENCLAVE 601 B BLOCK BELTOLA BAZAR ROAD GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM VERSUS SHRI BANAJEET BARMAN AND ORS S/O LATE UDYAN NARAYAN BARMAN RESIDENT OF PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 2:SMTI BINAPANI BARMAN W/O LATE UDAY NARAYAN BARMAN RESIDENT OF PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 3:SMTI INDRANI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 Page No.# 3/5 4:SMTI RUMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 5:SMTI JULI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 6:SMTI JURI BARMAN MEDHI PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 7:SMTI JUMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 8:SUMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 9:SMTI KIMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 10:SMTI KIMI BARMAN PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 11:M/S BARMAN TECH ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI BANAJEET BARMAN RESIDENT OF PUB SARANIA BYE LANE 8 HOUSE NO 8 GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 781003 For the appellant (s) : Mr. N. Das, Advocate For the respondent (s) : XXXXX BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 19.03.2025 Heard Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Page No.# 4/5 2. This is an Appeal filed challenging the order dated 06.02.2025 whereby the learned Trial Court, i.e. the Court of the Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati did not pass an ex- parte ad-interim injunction against the respondents herein. 3. It is seen that the learned Trial Court while passing the said order dated 06.02.2025 had duly taken note of that an amount of Rs.75 lakhs which was paid by the plaintiff to the Respondent No.1 as a part consideration towards the agreement for sale was returned by the Respondent No.1 herein to the Plaintiff and that cheque was duly accepted by the Plaintiff. 4. The learned Trial Court observed that from the pleadings of the Plaintiff in the suit, it was seen that the Plaintiff had accepted the cheque by which the respondent No.1 returned the consideration amount paid by the plaintiff which was akin to accepting the termination of the agreement dated 07.02.2023 and thereafter filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 07.02.2023. It is under such circumstances, the learned Trial Court was of the opinion that without hearing the respondents, it would not be proper on the part of the Court to pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. 5. This Court is aware that the present Appeal is an Appeal in principle taking into account that it is an Appeal against an order Page No.# 5/5 by which the learned Trial Court in its discretion found it proper not to pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. 6. This Court does not find any perversity or unreasonableness or irrationality in the order dated 06.02.2025. 7. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that though the impugned order was passed on 06.02.2025 and the present Appeal was filed on 21.02.2025, but the Appeal was filed defective and the defects were only rectified on 06.03.2025. The above show that the appellant herein was not showing any urgency in moving this Court. On this count also this Court does not find to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the learned Trial Court when the injunction proceedings are still pending. 8. Considering the above facts, this Court finds no justification in entertaining the instant Appeal for which the instant Appeal stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant