Gauhati High Court
Md Sahab Uddin Barbhuiya vs Md Mosobbir Ali Laskar on 16 October, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010225932023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/159/2023
MD SAHAB UDDIN BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE FURKAN ALI BARBHUIYA,
R/O- TARAPUR PART IV,
P.O AND P.S- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
MD MOSOBBIR ALI LASKAR
S/O- LATE LHALILUR RAHMAN LASKAR,
R/O- VILLAGE TILLAGRAM, RAMNAGAR PART IV,
P.S- SILCHJAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788003
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHAKRABARTY
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 16.10.2023
Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read
with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the proceedings of
Page No.# 2/3
T.S. No.350/2021 has assailed the appellate judgment and order dated
28.06.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar in Misc.
Appeal No. 14/2021. By the said order, the appeal was dismissed and the order
of injunction dated 29.11.2021, passed by the learned Munsif No.2, Cachar,
Silchar in Misc.(J) Case No. 140/2021 in T.S. No.350/2021 was upheld. It may
be mentioned that the learned Trial Court had directed both the parties to
maintain status quo as to the status of the schedule land, its nature and
feature, its possession, right, title and interest as on the date of passing of the
order. The parties were further directed not to construct any permanent
structure on the schedule land and not to alienate the same without the leave of
the Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although
there is an observation by the learned appellate Court that the petitioner-
defendant was in possession of the suit land measuring 3" X 97", as morefully
described in schedule-II of the plaint, but the same was not accepted as it was
the subject matter of trial in the suit.
4. It is submitted that in view of the order of status quo, the respondent-
defendant has been interfering with the right of the petitioner to use the kaccha
latrine situated in part of the schedule-II land.
5. In this regard, the Court finds that both the learned Courts below had
discussed the pleadings of the parties, and upon considering the three principles
of grant of injunction, i.e. prima facie, balance of convenience and irreparable
loss and injury, both the learned Courts below had given concurrent finding that
prima facie possession of the suit land described in schedule-II was enjoyed by
the petitioner-defendant. Nonetheless, the learned trial Court had passed the
order of status quo for preservation of the suit property by directing both the
Page No.# 3/3
parties to maintain status quo as regards the status of the suit land, its nature
and feature, its possession, right, title and interest as on 29.11.2021, further
directing the parties not to construct any permanent structure on the schedule
land and not to alienate the same without the leave of the Court. The order of
status quo passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by the learned first
appellate Court.
6. It does not appear from the tone and tenure of the order that there is
any restrainment to the petitioner to use a kaccha latrine. There is no material
available in this revision petition that the right of the petitioner to use the
kaccha latrine has been infringed in any manner.
7. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to issue notice in this revision
petition in as much as the Court does not find that the order of status quo is
operating in any manner contrary to the interest of the preservation of the suit
property. The Court does not find that the orders impugned in this revision,
were perverse or that they suffer from any jurisdictional errors.
8. Therefore, this revision stands dismissed at the motion stage without
issuance of notice on the respondent.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
