SAIDUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) by Caveat, entered appearance through his counsel Mr.P.Roy, to contest the matter.

(2.) What is challenged in this case is the order of learned District Judge, Nowgong, passed on 22-12-84, by which he modified the order of temporary injunction rendered by the trial Court. He has given relief to both sides and balanced equities fairly. He held that hte order of temporary injunction was not warranted but the petitioner, who was the respondent before him, was still entitled to some relief.

(3.) In the trial court the petitioner, by filing a suit, had impugned the order passed by the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (2nd respondent) on 7-12-83 (Annexure-7) suspending him pending drawal of proceedings and finalisation thereof. the petitioner sought temporary injunction to stay operation of this order and he succeeeded in the trial court. Learned District Judge, however, reached different findings and conclusions. He held that mere proof of prima facie case would not entitle the petitioner to a temporary injunction if there was no question of irreparable injury. He categorically held that the petitioner, as Secretary,used to draw fixed salary and he could be compensa ted in respect thereof in case he succeeded. There is also a finding by him on the question of balance of convenience thought on both scores learned Counsel for the petitioner disputes the position. His finding is that balance of convenience would not be in favour of the petitioner as who would suffer if the injunction was not granted wasnot the etitioner but the respondent, if it was granted. He weilghed equitiles on both sides.