IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.

DIV) AT SIVASAGAR

TITLE SUIT NO.11/2018

1. Kamal Baruah
2. Sri Yubraj Baruah
3. Miss Rajanandini Baruah

All of them are wife, son and

daughter respectively of the
deceased Dayal Krishna Baruah
and Residents of Milan Nagar,
Lane - D, Home No. 5, P.O.- CR
Building, P.S.- Dibrigarh, District -
Dibrugarh.,

………………. Plaintiff/Peititioner

-VS-

2. Smti. Bijoya Baruah

3. Sri Arkava Baruah

…………. Opposite
parties/Defendants

IN THE MATTER OF:

An objection on the behalf of

Defendant/Opposite Party No. 2
and 3 against the application
filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
of Code of Civil Procedure 1908
by the petitioner/plaintiff.
 The opposite parties, named
above:

1. That the instant application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is not

maintainable at all and is liable to be rejected with cost.
2. That the petitioners/plaintiff had earlier filed a similar injunction
seeking petition before the Hon’ble Court, Sivasagar namely Misc (J)
Case No.27/2018 which was disposed on 16.11.2019 on the perusal
of not granting the petitioner injunction thereby barring the present
application based on res judicata.
3. That the statement made in the paragraph No.1,2 and 3 of the
application are all matters of record and admitted by the opposite
parties.
4. That the statements made in the paragraph No.4 of the application
that the opposite party /Defendant No.2 and 3 staged a conspiracy
with the opposite Defendant No.1 and started illegal construction
inside the suit premises with the malefice intent to change the
name and structure of the suit premises are all baseless and false
and the same is denied by the opposite parties. The Opposite
parties state that the petitioner has not mentioned the source from
where she got the information about the attempts on change on the
name of the firm as well as construction on the suit premises
bearing no substantial value. Moreover, the pleadings of the
petitioners/plaintiffs affirms that the land on which the building was
constructed belongs to the late husband of Opposite Party No.2
which was mortgaged in the name of the loan of Rs 7,50,000/- and
later liquidated the entire amount to the bank, thereby reclaiming
the land from the bank.
5. That the statements made in paragraph No. 5 and 6 of the
application are all baseless and false and the same is denied by the
opposite parties. The opposite parties state that on the prior MISC (J)
CASE NO.27/2018, the Learned Senior Division Court, Sivasagar
observed the balance of convenience not in the favor of the
petitioners/plaintiffs and hence the purpose of the suit shall not be
 frustrated, and the petitioner shall not be prejudiced in any way in
terms of.
6. That the statement made in paragraph No.7 of the application are
false and baseless and the same is denied by the opposite parties.
The opposite parties state that the allegations put up by the
petitioners/plaintiff are all vague in nature and not substantiate by
any evidence as in no name mention of the third party in the
application thereby making false allegations on the opposite parties
and hence the application is liable to be rejected.
7. That the statement made in paragraph No. 8 of the application that
injunction is claimed on the context of following the direction of the
partnership agreement the plaintiff/petitioner and investing lot of
money on the suit premises is not an appropriate claim on the part
of the plaintiffs/petitioners. The opposite parties state that the
plaintiff had invested only part of the loan amount in constructing
about 45% of the building but the said loan amount was also not
repaid by him rather the same was paid by the defendant and her
sons under compelling circumstances thereby making the ground of
investment of money on the part of petitioner not acceptable for
injunction. Moreover
8. That the statements made in paragraph No.9 of the application are
false and baseless and the opposite parties denies the same. The
opposite parties state that from the very beginning of the
partnership between the deceased husband of the opposite party
No.2 and the deceased husband of the petitioners/plaintiff, all the
initial investment for the suit premises (workshop) was borne by the
former one as in terms of electricity connection in the year 2009 for
the schedule premises. Moreover, as per the declaration of legal
right of the petitioners are concerned the opposite parties state that
all the statements of the plaintiffs/petitioner made in terms of rents
paid to opposite parties are contradictory to the lease deed dated
22.3.2007 relied on by the plaintiff. After the execution of the lease
deed the building was not completed which was later completed by
 the Opposite Party/defendant No.1 by investing a huge amount from
its own. It is also pertinent mention herein that no reliable source of
information regarding the claim of ongoing construction in the suit
premises has been provided by the petitioner to grant them
injunction thereby not validating their claim.
9. That the statements made in paragraph No.10 and 11 of the
application are all false and baseless and vague attempts to divert
the court’s attention from the priority matters of the present suit.
The opposite parties state that the learned Senior Division Civil
Court, Sivasagar on the prior injunction case namely MISC(J) Case
No.27/2018 had agreed on the claim of prima facia made by the
petitioners/plaintiffs however the court pointed out that the
petitioner did not submit any documents to support his pleadings of
the previous injunction. Moreover, the learned court had also
mentioned that the petitioner shall not be suffering from any kind of
irreparable loss in the case of non-granting of injunction.
10. That the statements made in paragraph No. 12 to 15 of the
plaint are all vague attempts and repeated claims made in the prior
injunction suit namely MISC (J) Case No.27/2018 by the petitioner
which were denied by the learned court thereby stating that this is
not a fit case for granting temporary injunction. Hence this petition
for seeking injunction is liable to be rejected with cost.
11. That the instant petition is made malefice and for causing
prejudice of opposite parties.

Upon the premises it therefore

prayed that Your Honor would reject
the application for seeking injunction
and pass such necessary judgement
as deem fit and proper.