SEHEKAYA LYNGDOH Vs. PLANLY RYNGKEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for he respondents, the first question which falls for consideration in this revision petition is whether an appeal lies against the ex-parte order of temporary injunction issued by the Subordinate District Council Court, Shill-ong.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this revision, shorn of unnecessary details, may be noticed at once. The petitioner is the proprietor of a firm under the name and style of M/s Esskay Enterprise with its office at Mawlai Nongkwar, Shillong, which is engaged in the business of extracting and supplying coal and limestone, was registered for export and import of minerals. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.10.1989, the Syiem of Langrin with the approval of the Darbar executed a Lease Deed in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of mining and quarrying of minerals especially coal over six acres of land situated "Lawlyngngam Tilla" within the boundary described in the Schedule to the lease deed, for a period of thirty years. According to the petitioner, since the date of execution of the said lease deed, he has been continuously extracting coal and other minerals from the leased land without any interference from any quarter. The Syiem of Langrin by his order dated 12.5.1992 also debarred any person from interfering with the mining work of the petitioner carried on by him within the leased land. However, on 3.10.1995, some persons trespassed into the leased land and illegally tried to extract coal and other minerals therefrom. This prompted the petitioner to institute Title Suit No. 19 of 1995 before the Sub-District Council Court, Shillong against those trespassers a decree of declaration of his title to the suit land/leased land and simultaneously applied for issue of temporary injunction in his favour. The Sub-District Court in Misc. Case No. 17 of 1995 issued the order dated 13.12.1995 granting temporary injunction as prayed for. The temporary injunction was subsequently made absolute by the same court in its order dated 13.6.1996 after hearing both the parties by holding that the lease deed in question had the approval of both the Syiem and the Darbar. The appeal preferred by some of the defendants from the order dated 13.6.1996 was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, District Council Court, Shillong in his judgment dated 19.4.1999. As no further appeal or revision was preferred from the judgment dated 19.4.1999, according to the petitioner, the same has attained finality. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Title Suit No. 19 of 1995 was finally disposed of by the Subordinate District Council Court in its judgment and order dated 20.9.2007 by holding that the suit land as per the boundaries given in the Schedule to the lease deed dated 26.10.1989 was leased out to him and that he was in possession of the same. The trial court also restrained those defendants, their agents and workmen from entering the suit land during the subsistence of the lease deed. A decree was accordingly drawn up in favour of the petitioner whereupon Execution Case No. 2 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner.

(3.) It is also the case of the petitioner that on 12.9.2009, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein and their labourers forcibly entered the suit land and removed 200 truck loads of coal therefrom despite the requests made by him to quit the suit land, who, however, threat-ened him and harassed his workers. This compelled the petitioner to institute Title Suit No. 16 of 2009 before the Sub-District Council Court, Shillong against the respond-ents and their men. Simultaneously, an application was filed by him for granting an ad interim injunction against the respondents. The trial court in Misc Case No. 16 of 2009 passed the order dated 30.9.2009 granting the adinterim injunction restraining the respondents or their agents from entering the suit land and requiring them to show cause as to why the interim injunction should not be made absolute on the fixed date. The respo-ndents, however, did not show cause and rushed to appellate court by way of an appeal, which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2009. Their contention before the appellate court was that they were the managers of one Smt. S.K. Sokhlet and entered the suit land on the strength of the lease deed dated 5.11.1987 executed by the Syiem of Langrin in favour of the said S.K. Sokhlet: a sketch map showing the boundaries of the land allegedly so leased out to them was annexed to the memo of appeal. It was also the case of the respondents that the said S.K. Sokhlet had also filed Title Suit No. 24 of 2003 along Misc. Case No. 18 of 2003 before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong, who, by the order dated 21.11.2003 granted an ad interim junction against the petitioner herein. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Council Court, Shillong was dismissed on 8.7.2008. It was accordingly contended by the respon-dents that since no further appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the injunction order, the order dated 21.11.2003 had attained finality and that Title Suit No. 24 of 2003, which is still pending in the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong, is in respect of the same subject-matter of the suit filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, however, disputes that the suit land in the suit filed by him and the suit land in Title Suit No. 24 of 2003 is one and the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that when Misc. Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2009 came up for consideration on 29.10.2009, the learned Additional Judge stayed the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the trial court issuing the ad-interim injunction and instead directed both the parties to maintain the status quo over the suit land as on that date. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong passed the impugned judgment setting aside the ad-interim injunction issued by the trial court by holding that as the petitioner did not give specific boundaries of the suit land, no blanket injunction could have been granted by the trial court and that the respondents, who are managers of the said S.K. Sokhlet, had a prima facie case, had the balance of convenience, and irreparable loss would be caused to them if they were restrained from working on the suit land. Aggrieved by this, this revision is now filed by the petitioner.