SMTI NILIMA DHAR WIFE OF (L) NK DHAR R/O DHAR VILLA KENCHS TRACE, MADAN LABAN SHILLONG Vs. SHRI LASCRETICE LYNGDOH RESIDENT OF KENCHS TRACE MADAN LABAN, SHILLONG AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the original prayer made by the petitioner in this revision is for the final hearing and disposal by this Court of the Misc. Case No. 9(T) of 2006 pending before the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, Mr. S. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of hearing has now confined himself to the desirability of transferring the Misc. Case together with T.S. No. 4(T) of 2006 before any other court of competent jurisdiction for speedy disposal. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 4(T) of 2006 against the petitioner in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for declaration and permanent injunction. The respondent No. 1 also simultaneously filed Misc. Case No. 9(T) of 2006 for issuing temporary injunction. By the order dated 10-2-2006, the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner directed the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit and had fixed 13-3-2006 for show cause by the petitioner. The petitioner, who is arraigned as the defendant No. 4 in the suit, had also entered his appearance. However, in the meantime, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 39, Rule 2A , Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 54(T) of 2006, for punishing the petitioner for violating the interim order passed by the Court on 10-2-2006 and for directing the Officer-in-Charge of Laban Police Station to stop construction of works on the suit land. The learned Assistant passed the order dated 23-5-2006 directing the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to stop all construction works on the suit land. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred F.A.O. No. 18(T) of 2006 before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong from the order dated 23-5-2006. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 16-6-2006 had allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 23-5-2006 passed by the learned Assistant in Misc. Case No. 54(T) of 2006. However, the respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong before this Court in C.R.(P) No. 10(SH) of 2006. This Court by the order dated 9-8-2006 set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and restored the order dated 23-5-2006 passed by the learned Assistant. On 19-10-2006, the petitioner filed her show cause as well as her written statement. The respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 also filed their respective written statements. The case was not taken up by the learned Assistant till 26-7-2007 for one reason or another. However, on 21-5-2008, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Shillong transferred the cases to the file of Smt. I. Majaw, the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for trial and disposal. But the cases did not proceed further due to the transfer of the Presiding Officer. On 5-8-2008, on the motion made by the petitioner, the cases were transferred to the file of Smt. R. Iangrai, the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, who was again transferred elsewhere and could not, therefore, dispose of the cases. On 4-2-2009, on a motion made by the petitioner, the cases were again endorsed to Smt. L.T. Lyngdoh, the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for trial and disposal. Though the cases were endorsed to the file of Smt. L.T. Lyngdoh, learned Assistant on 4-2-2009, the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction continue to remain pending till date. In other words, the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner as early as 2006 has not been disposed of till now. This prompted the petitioner to file this revision petition.

(2.) From the history of the cases as revealed in the revision petition, it is crystal clear that both the suit and the miscellaneous application for temporary injunction have not moved an inch till date. Injunction is a preventive relief and is generally granted taking note of equity. The object of filing an application for temporary injunction is to preserve the suit property intact pending disposal of the connected suit. Order 39, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that when the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain such an act or make other order for the purpose of preventing the dispossession of the plaintiff or for the purpose of preventing the causing of injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute. As a preventive relief, what is of utmost importance is expeditious disposal of the application. Disposal of such application can brook no delay as otherwise the very purpose of seeking temporary injunction will be defeated or frustrated. If the applicant can satisfy the court that he has a prima facie case to go to trial; that the balance of convenience lies with him and that irreparable damage can be caused to him if no interim injunction is issued, then issuing the temporary injunction is the logical consequence. However, if the applicant cannot satisfy the court about the existence of the aforesaid conditions, the application for temporary injunction has to be rejected. In the instant case, for some reasons which border on negligence, the application of the respondent for temporary injunction has not been disposed of even after the petitioner has already submitted her show cause. On the contrary, without disposing of the application, the trial court has been merely satisfied with directing the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit land and directing the Officer-in-Charge of Laban Police Station to take steps for stopping construction work on the suit land ", which directions continue to be operative till date. If the plaintiff-respondent is, after hearing both the parties, found to be not entitled to temporary injunction, it is inconceivable as to the damage he would have caused to the petitioner during the period when she had been restrained from doing construction work on the suit land for over four years. Of course, if the restraint order is found to be well justified after hearing both the parties, no substantial damage could have been caused to the petitioner, but then without hearing the parties, such restraint order should not have been continued year after year. To recapitulate facts, the Title Suit No. 4(T) of 2006 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the year 2006. At or about the same time, he also filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial court on 10-2-2006 directed the petitioner to show cause against the application for temporary injunction returnable on 13-3-2006 and further directed the parties to maintain the status quo in respect of the suit land. Before disposing of the application for temporary injunction, the respondent filed another application under Order 39, Rule 2A of the Code for punishing the petitioner for violation of the injunction order and also for directing the police to stop the petitioner from doing construction works on the suit land. The trial court then passed the order dated 23-5-2006 in Misc. Case No. 54(T) of 2006 directing the Officer-in-Charge of Laban Police Station to stop all constructions on the suit premises. Thus, the restraint order has been operating for the last over four years, quite possibly, to the detriment of the petitioner even before hearing her side of the story. Therefore, it is imperative that the cases be transferred to some other court of competent jurisdiction for expeditious disposal in accordance with law.

(3.) In the result and for expeditious disposal of both the suit and the application for temporary injunction, it is hereby directed that all the connected cases, namely, T.S. No. 4(T) of 2006, Misc. Case No. 9(T) of 2006 and Misc. Case No. 54(T) of 2006 shall stand transferred from the file of Ms. L.T. Lyngdoh, the learned Assistant to D.C., Shillong to the file of Mr. Malthus S. Sangma, the learned Assistant to D.C., Shillong. The learned Assistant, on receipt of the case records, shall hear both the parties and dispose of M.C. No. 9(T) of 2006 in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of one month thereafter. He is also directed to dispose of the remaining cases as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, Mrs. L.T. Lyngdoh, the learned Assistant to D.C., shall make over the case records immediately. The revision petition is disposed of on the above terms, but by directing the parties to bear their respective costs.