Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Md Kamaluddin Ahmed And Ors on 8 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010164032025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/127/2025
THE ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
ASTC COMPLEX, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI 78108, KAMRUP (M),
ASSAM.
2: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ASTC COMPLEX
PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781008
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
3: THE STATION SUPERINTENDENT
ASSAM STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MORAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
VERSUS
MD KAMALUDDIN AHMED AND ORS
S/O LATE PAJIRUDDIN AHMED, R/O MORAN TOWN, P.O., P.S. MORAN,
DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN 785675
2:ZAMALUDDIN AHMED
S/O LATE PAJIRUDDIN AHMED
3:SMTI. BULIN AHMED
D/O LATE PAJIRUDDIN AHMED
4:SMTI. ALIN AHMED
D/O LATE PAJIRUDDIN AHMED
ALL ARE R/O MORAN TOWN
Page No.# 2/3
P.O. AND P.S. MORAN
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR ASHIM CHAMUAH,
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B K DAS, MR H P GUWALA,I J SINGPHO
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
08.08.2025
Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. B.K.
Das, learned counsel for the respondents.
This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred by
the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No.11/2013. It is to be noted here that vide
impugned judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018, the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh
(hereinafter 'First Appellate Court'), has reversed the judgment and decree dated
10.12.2012 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.11/2005. It is
also to be noted here that vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012, the learned
Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh (hereinafter 'Trial Court'), has dismissed the Title Suit
No.11/2005.
Perused the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein and also perused
the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned First
Appellate Court and also the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2012 passed by the
learned Trial Court.
This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in law in passing
Page No.# 3/3
the impugned judgment and decree without considering the Order VII
Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and travelled beyond its
scope?
(ii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court erred in law thereby
directing the appellants/defendants to pay fair rent to the
respondent/plaintiff and proforma respondents since 1950 without
considering Article 52 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
The Court may also consider framing of further substantial question of law, if found
necessary, at the time of hearing after notifying both the parties.
Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within 4(four) weeks.
However, no formal notice is required to be issued to the respondents, as Mr. Das,
learned counsel has entered appearance against all the respondents and accepts notice.
However, extra copy of the memo of appeal be furnished to him during the course of the
day.
Registry shall call for the record from the learned Courts below.
List the matter after 4(four) weeks.
Later on, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the
proforma respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already suffered demise in the years 2009 and
2020, respectively.
Mr. Chamuah, learned counsel for the appellant shall take necessary step to bring
on record the legal heirs of the proforma respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Sd/- Robin Phukan
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
