NUR ISLAM Vs. MUSTT SAMASTA BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against an order of learned District Judge, Morigaon in Misc. (J) Case No. 12/96 arising out of Title Suit No. 7/96. By the impugned order the learned District judge granted an ad interim injunction restraining the principal-defendants from proceeding with the execution of decree of TS 4 of 1983 of the Court of Assistant District Judge, Nagaon which was obtained by them and which was confirmed in appeal as well as in Second Appeal by both the Courts. For disposal of this appeal, it is necessary to have a look at the brief facts of the earlier suit. A portion of that judgment i.e. in T.S. No. 4/83 is quoted below:

(2.) It may be stated herein that proceeding also the issue being -Issue No. 4 whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of parties and deciding Issue No. 4, the trial Court arrived at the following finding:

(3.) Dictum of the Privy Council is that in India it is easy to obtain a decree, but difficult to reap the fruit of it. That observation was made by the Privy Council as far as back as in 1856 in 12 MI. A. That observation of the Privy Council still holds good. A time has come when the Court must take strict view of the matter and an injunction in such a casual and cavalier manner should .not be granted. The Court may grant an injunction in an appropriate case, but that must not become a rule, if it is made so easy and every decree obtained can be challenged and another round of litigation shall start. That will mean a body blow to the concept of justice. A decree instead of assuring finality will be always in a topsy turvy situation.