I.A.(Civil)/2749/2025 of MD ABDULLAH Vs MRS MIRA HAZARIKA AND 4 ORS on 11 February 2026

ORDER

12.02.2026

Heard Mr. U. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. R. Shome, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any person claiming through them from carrying out any construction whatsoever over the Schedule-B land.

3. The case of the applicant, as urged, is that although the learned Trial Court held that the respondents/defendants had not encroached upon the Schedule-B land measuring 2 Kathas 3.5 Lechas, a finding which stood affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, the respondents have now commenced construction of RCC structures over the said land. According to the applicant, such construction would alter the nature and character of the land and cause serious prejudice to his interest.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents/defendants have been found to be in possession of the Schedule-B land by concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court. It is contended that restraining the respondents from raising construction on land held to be in their possession would be wholly unjustified.

It is further argued that, even if the applicant ultimately succeeds in the second appeal, any construction raised would be subject to the final decree and can always be removed in accordance with law.

5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the Schedule-B land and that there was no encroachment as alleged. The said finding has been affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. Though the second appeal has been admitted and the aforesaid findings are under challenge, the same continue to hold the field as on date.

7. The original suit instituted by the applicant was for declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule-A land and for recovery of khas possession of the Schedule-B land by evicting the respondents/defendants, along with demolition of the boundary wall, shop house and other structures raised thereon. The said prayers were dismissed by the learned Trial Court and such dismissal was upheld in appeal.

8. It also emerges from the record that constructions made by the respondents/defendants already exist over the Schedule-B land. In such circumstances, the contention that further construction of RCC structures would change the nature and character of the land does not appear to be well- founded.

9. The suit itself being one for recovery of possession and demolition of structures, no irreparable loss or injury can be said to be caused to the applicant at this stage. In the event the applicant ultimately succeeds in the second appeal, the law provides adequate remedy to restore possession and to deal with any construction raised during the pendency of the proceedings.

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the applicant, nor is there any likelihood of irreparable injury being caused.

11. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is found to be devoid of merit and stands rejected.

12. No order as to costs.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant