[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Partha Pratim Borah And 2 Ors on 10 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010263032025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/501/2025
SMTI ANJALI HAZARIKA BORAH AND ANR
W/O- LATE BUDHINDRA NATH BORAH, R/O- DICIAL GAON, P.O-
DHULIAPAR, DIST- SIVSAGAR, ASSAM, PIN - 785664.
2: PALLABI BORAH
D/O- LATE BUDHINDRA NATH BORAH
R/O- DICIAL GAON
P.O- DHULIAPAR
P.S. AND DIST- SIVSAGAR
ASSAM
PIN - 785664
VERSUS
PARTHA PRATIM BORAH AND 2 ORS
S/O- LATE BUDHINDRA NATH BORAH, R/O- DICIAL GAON P.O -
DHULIAPAR, P.S AND DIST - SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785664.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SIVASAGAR
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR
P.O AND DIST- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
SIVASAGAR REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O AND P.S - SIVASAGAR -785640
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MRS R BEGUM,MS. A LALA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 10.12.2025
1. Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D.D
Barman, learned Sr. Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 &
3.
2. This Interlocutory Application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioners impugning the judgment and order dated
26.09.2025 passed by the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sivasagar in Misc.
Case No. 06/2025 whereby the temporary injunction granted against respondent
No. 1 by the Ld. Trial Court was vacated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the legal
heir of late Budhindra Nath Bora and the respondent No. 1 is the son of petitioner
No. 1 as well as the brother of petitioner No. 2. He submits that the respondent
No. 1, after death of her father, had mutated his name in respect of a plot of land
measuring 1 katha 7 lechas which belong to the predecessor in interest of the
present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mutation
was obtained on the basis of a purported N.O.C granted by the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the signatures of the present
petitioners were obtained by the respondent No. 1, who is the son of petitioner
No. 1 and brother of petitioner No. 2, on the pretext that the said signatures were
required in respect of mutating their name in connection with some other land of
the deceased late Budhindra Nath Bora. However, the said signatures were used to
manufacture an N.O.C which was later on used for mutating the name of
respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit. Further, after mutating his name, the
respondent No. 4 also got the land partition and obtained the patta from the
revenue authorities in his name. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the petitioner came to know about this fact only in the month of
March 2025 and thereafter, immediately on 20th of March, 2025, they instituted a
Page No.# 3/4
title suit which was registered as Title Suit No. 21/2025 before the Court of Ld.
Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sivasagar praying for declaring the relief as well as praying
for cancellation of mutation order and declaring that the partition order obtained
by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit land, as void.
4. In the aforesaid title suit, the present petitioner had also prayed for grant of
temporary injunction by filing a Misc. Case and in the said Misc. Case, by order
dated 29.03.2025, the Ld. Trial Court granted ad interim injunction in favour of the
present petitioner restraining the present respondent No. 1 from continuing the
construction over the suit land. Later on, the said ad interim injunction was made
absolute by the Ld. Trial Court by its order dated 31.05.2025 passed in Misc.(J)
Case No. 38/2025.
5. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 preferred
an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court
of Ld. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sivasagar by the impugned judgment and order
dated 26.09.2025, this appellate Court vacated the temporary injunction order
dated 31.05.2025 by the Ld. Trial Court in Misc.(J) Case No. 38/2025.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the impugned order
itself, the appellate Court has admitted that the question of entitlement of the
shares of the present petitioners over the suit land is a matter to be adjudicated
on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. However, in spite of that, it
vacated the temporary injunction order dated 31.05.2025 by making observation
that if the respondent completes the construction, he may have to remove that
portion of the house if same is found to be in the share of either of the plaintiffs.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is a contrary observation
made by the appellate Court while vacating the injunction order. He submits that if
the construction of the house by the son of the petitioner No. 1 and the brother of
the petitioner No. 2 over the suit land, over which the present petitioner also have
shares as ancestral property, is allowed, it would change the nature and character
suit land.
Page No.# 4/4
8. Issue notice to the respondents.
9. Since Ms. D.D Barman, learned Sr. Addl. Government Advocate has appeared
for respondent No. 2 & 3, no formal notice needs to be issued to the said
respondent. However, as regards petitioner No. 1, the petitioner shall take steps
for issuance of notice upon the said respondent by Speed Post within 3(three)
days from the date of this order returnable on 06.01.2026.
10. In the meanwhile, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioners as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the respondent No. 1 is
directed to maintain status quo, in respect of his suit land, till the next returnable
date.
11. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
