Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010222232025 2026:GAU-AS:6649 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/64/2025 PRANAB KUMAR BANERJEE AND ANR. S/O. LT. DURGA CHARAN BENERJEE, R/O. MATRI BHABAN, M.L NEHRU ROAD, PAN BAZAR, GHY-1, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: TUSHAR KANA BANERJEE W/O. LT. GAUTAM BANERJEE R/O. M.L NEHRU ROAD PAN BAZAR GHY-1 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS PARTHA SARATI BANERJEE AND 2 ORS S/O. PRANAB KUMAR BANERJEE, R/O. MATRI BHABAN, M.L NEHRU ROAD, PAN BAZAR, GHY-1, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:DEBIPRIYA BANERJEE W/O. PRANAB KUMAR BANERJEE R/O. MATRI BHABAN M.L NEHRU ROAD PAN BAZAR GHY-1 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:SANKAR GHOSH S/O. NOT KNOWN... C/O. CANDID DRUG DISTRIBUTOR 46B RADHA BAZAR LANE KOLKATA-700001 Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P GOGOI, YUVRAJ KASHYAP,MR H DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR P DOLEY (R-1), MS N RABHA(R1,2,3),MR N TALUKDAR(R1,2,3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 12.05.2026 [1] Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondents. [2] This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code has been preferred by the appellants, namely, 1. Pranab Kumar Banerjee and 2. Tushar Kana Banerjee, impugning the order dated 22.09.2025, passed by the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup in Misc.(J)Case No. 900/2025, arising out of Title Suit No. 593/2025. [3] Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the present appellants have filed a title suit, i.e., Title Suit No. 593/2025, before the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, praying for relief of declaration that the partnership deed dated 17.11.2022 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. It has prayed for another declaration as well as for permanent injunction by Page No.# 3/6 restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs from running the business of “M/s Eastern Enterprise.” He submits that along with the said interlocutory application, the present appellants had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for grant of temporary injunction against the present respondents from disturbing the present appellants, more specifically, the appellant No. 1 in discharging day to day business of the “M/s Eastern Enterprise.” The said application was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 900/2025. [4] The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though the appellants had pleaded for waving the issuance of notice to the respondents in the aforesaid injunction application and also pleaded for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, the trial court instead of granting ex parte ad interim injunction, had issued notice to the opposite parties and have fixed the matter for filing objection. [5] The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the next date of the aforesaid Misc.(J) Case fixed before the trial court is on 12.06.2026. [6] He submits that though the deed of partnership, which has been challenged in the suit filed by the present appellants, was executed in the year 2022; however, the appellants came to know about the Page No.# 4/6 same only on 12th September, 2025. [7] He also submits that the appellant No. 1 is presently looking after the business of the said partnership firm. When this court proposed that the matter may be disposed of finally by the trial court on merits, as same is pending before the trial court, the learned counsel for the appellants really agreed to the said propositions, however, he prayed for a direction for maintenance of status quo during the said period. [8] On the other hand, Mr. N. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the trial court has committed no wrong by not waving the notice and by not granting ex parte interim injunction under the facts and circumstances of the said case. [9] He submits that while issuing the notice to the respondents, the trial court has mentioned the reasons for issuance of notice, i.e., the partnership deed which is challenged in the suit is almost three years old and under such backdrop the trial court framed it necessary to hear both the sides before considering the prayer for grant of temporary injunction made by the present appellants. [10] This court, on perusal of the application filed by the present appellants before the trial court in Misc. (J) Case No. 900/2025, has noticed that though in Page No.# 5/6 paragraph No. 5 of the said application, it was mentioned that the matter is very urgent in nature and the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay. However, apart from that statement the facts from which such a conclusion may be arrived at were not elaborated in the application and, therefore, this court is of considered opinion that trial court did no wrong in issuing notice to the present respondents. As the Misc. (J) Case No. 900/2025 is fixed before the trial court on 12.06.2025, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present respondents would be filing their written objection before the trial court in Misc. (J) Case No. 900/2025 by the next date fixed, i.e., on 12.06.2025. [11] Under such circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with an observation that the trial court shall make all endeavour to dispose of the Misc. (J) Case No. 900/2025 within 2(two) months from the date of this order. [12] The observations made in this order shall not have any bearing upon the trial court, while considering Misc. (J) Case No. 900/2025. The said Misc. (J) Case shall be decided by the trial court on its own merit after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. [13] This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant