(1.) The Order dated 13.8.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 34 of 2012 is under challenge in this appeal, filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By the impugned order, the learned trial judge has rejected the prayer for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved with this order, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. Heard Mr. BC Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. PN Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the impugned Order and the documents annexed with the memo of appeal.
(2.) The petitioner herein has filed the Title Suit No. 140 of 2012 praying for a decree of declaration that the complaints made by the defendants before various authorities on different dates are defamatory in nature and, as such, damages to the tune of Rs. One crore should be granted to the plaintiff and in addition to that an order of permanent injunction should also be passed restraining the defendants from lodging any such complaints in future, which may defame and damage the reputation of the plaintiff in public. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was also filed and upon hearing both the parties the impugned order has been passed.
(3.) Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaints were lodged by the defendants on the basis of surmises and assumptions and without any concrete evidence of misappropriation of public money and the defendants/respondents repeatedly filed complaints on as many as four occasions. In view of the repeated complaints without materials the trial court ought to have held that there is a prima-facie case for temporary injunction. Mr. Das further submitted that defaming a person in public cannot be measured in terms of money and as such, the appellant/plaintiff had a good case to seek for temporary injunction, since plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss.