I.A.(Civil) 722/2017. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberI.A.(Civil) 722/2017
Judgement DateMarch 29, 2021
CourtGauhati High Court



I .A. ( C) 722 of 2017 ( I n FAO 8 of 2017)

SHRI RANTU DAS ... Applicant/ Appellant


SHRI RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA ... Opp. Party/ Respondent



Advocates for the Petitioners : Mr. D. Baruah,

: Mr. B. Das, Mr. N.B.P. Singha.

Advocates for the Respondents : Mr. S.J. Sharma, Mr. S.N. Adhyapak,

: Mr. K. Kalita.

Date of hearing : 22.03.2017

Date of Judgment & Order : 29.03.2017


Heard Mr. Devashis Baruah, the learned counsel for the applicant/ Appellant and Mr. Satyajit Sharma, the learned counsel for the Opp. Party/ Respondent, who has appeared as Caveator.

2) By filing this application under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant has prayed for the stay of the impugned order

I.A. (C) 722/2017 In FAO 8/2017 Page

dated 13.12.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No. 168/ 16 arising out of T.S. No. 1/ 2012.

3) The case of the parties in brief is that one M/ s. Manjula Business Consortium, Guwahati, which was the proprietorship concern of Mrs. Manjula H. Kalita (defendant No.1), entered into an agreement with the Opp. Party herein for selling a total of 8 (eight) numbers of shops and toilet space of different measurements aggregating an total area of 1,950 square feet (excluding wall thickness) in the ground floor of a building under the name of Dolly Enclave. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.2,100/ - per square feet and the Opp. Party herein had paid an advance of Rs.8,00,000/ -, the balance being payable in accordance with the final measurement at the time of delivery of thereof to the Opp. Party. The said premises is morefully described in Schedule-A(1) of the said above referred agreement. The said agreement was registered before the Sub-Registry at Guwahati as Registered Deed No. 12798 dated 21.11.2006.

4) The said M/ s. Manjula Business Consortium failed to deliver the agreed premises to the Opp. Party herein in violation the terms of their agreement, for which the Opp. Party instituted T.S. No.1/ 2012 against the said builder and others. The Opp. Party projected that he had came to know that the Applicant herein had purchased the land and structures vide Registered Deed No. 12730 dated 03.10.2008 and, as such, the Applicant was impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the said suit by order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge No.3, Guwahati. The suit proceeded ex parte against the Applicant herein. I n the said suit, the Applicant herein filed an application for ad-interim injunction under the provisions of Order XXXI X Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 168/ 2016. I n the said application, the Opp. Party prayed for issuance of ad-interim injunction restraining the applicant herein from alienating the suit property and delivery of the same to any person in any other manner. The applicant contested the said case. The learned Trial Court initially granted ex parte ad-interim injunction, but the same was not extended

I.A. (C) 722/2017 In FAO 8/2017 Page

as the Opp. Party herein did not make any prayer for extension of such order. Ultimately, by the order dated 13.12.2016, which is impugned in the connected appeal, the learned Trial Court restrained the applicant herein, his heirs, agents, etc. from alienating the suit shop premises measuring 1,950 square feet as described in the Agreement of the Opp. Party herein and in the Schedule to the injunction application in any manner and from delivering possession of the same to any person till the disposal of the suit and the said Misc. (J) Case No. 168/ 2016 was disposed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT