Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs Daroga Rai And 3 Ors on 12 February, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010238852024
2025:GAU-AS:1504
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/119/2024
GOPAL TRIPATHI
S/O LATE HARIHAR TRIPATHI, R/O SARBANANDA ROAD, MASJID PATTY,
P.O., P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
DAROGA RAI AND 3 ORS
S/O LATE DIPNARAYAN RAI, R/O CHRIWAPATTY, TINSUKIA, P.O., P.S. AND
DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125
2:RAMESH SINGH
S/O LATE SATYADEO SINGH
R/O RAJA ALI ROAD
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
3:CHANCHAL RAI
S/O LATE DIPNARAYAN RAI
R/O CHRIWAPATTY
TINSUKIA
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786125
4:SAKALDEO SAH
S/O UNKNOWN
R/O NAUPUKHURI
NEW DEVELOPMENT
P.O.
Page No.# 2/6
P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-78612
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Islam, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : None appears
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 12.02.2025
Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.
2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned
First Appellate Court") in Misc Appeal No. 01/2023 whereby the learned
First Appellate Court had interfered with the order dated 17.12.2022
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Tinsukia
(hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court") in Misc (J) Case No.
20/2022.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and has also perused the materials on record.
4. From the perusal of materials on record, it is seen that the plaintiff
who is the petitioner herein had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 20/2022
claiming declaration that the plaintiff has right, interest and lawful
Page No.# 3/6
possession over the suit land and as such, he along with his family
members cannot be evicted from the suit land forcefully, illegally and
unlawfully without any decree from the Competent Court. The plaintiff
further sought for a decree for a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, agent, etc., from disturbing the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his family members with
regard to the suit land mentioned in Schedule B to the plaint and also
from creating any sort of nuisance or disturbance in the suit land and
also from dispossessing the plaintiff or his men, agents, belongings, etc.,
forcefully, illegally and unlawfully. It is relevant to take note of that the
suit land is a plot of land admeasuring 6.5 Lechas covered by Periodic
Patta No. 98 under Dag No. 4923 of Tinsukia Town under Tinsukia
Mouza.
5. It is further pertinent to mention that along with the said suit, an
injunction application was filed by the plaintiff which was registered and
numbered as Misc(J) Case No. 20/2022, seeking an ad-interim temporary
injunction restraining the opposite parties, their men, agents, etc., from
disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with
regard to the suit land mentioned in Schedule B and also from creating
any sort of nuisance or disturbance in the peaceful possession of the
petitioner thereon, and also from dispossessing the petitioner or his men,
agents belongings, etc., forcefully, illegally and unlawfully till the disposal
of the suit. It is pertinent to mention that the relief sought for in the
injunction application is a prohibitory form of temporary injunction.
6. The learned Trial Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim temporary
injunction order in 01.04.2022, thereby directing the opposite parties,
Page No.# 4/6
their men, agents and all persons acting on their behalf or under, not to
enter into the Schedule B land and from causing any kind of nuisance or
disturbance in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule B
land by the petitioner until the appearance of the opposite parties. The
said ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction order was continued from
time to time. The said injunction order is also a prohibitory form of ad-
interim ex-parte injunction. This Court had perused the said order and
there is nothing to show that any form of mandatory injunction was
granted to the plaintiff to raise construction.
7. The respondents herein filed their written objection as well as the
written statement in the said suit. It is further seen from the records that
on 17.12.2022, the learned Trial Court after taking into account the
admitted fact that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land made
the ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction order dated 01.04.2022
absolute till the disposal of the Title Suit meaning thereby, that no
mandatory injunction was passed thereby allowing the plaintiff to raise
construction.
8. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein filed an appeal being Misc
Appeal No. 01/2023. The learned First Appellate Court after taking into
account the materials on record came to a finding that the status as
regards to suit property be maintained and thereby directed both the
parties to maintain status quo. It is no longer res-integra that when an
order of status quo is directed to be passed, it amounts to an order of
injunction and under such circumstances, both the parties were therefore
directed to maintain status quo in respect to the suit land. However, this
Court finds it relevant to take note of that in paragraph Nos. 19 and 20 of
Page No.# 5/6
the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 where the learned First Appellate
Court, in spite of directing the maintenance of status quo, which in the
opinion of this Court was rightly done, observed that the learned Trial
Court had committed an error in allowing the respondent to make
construction in the suit land vide the order dated 17.12.2022. A perusal
of the orders dated 01.04.2022 as well as 17.12.2022 would show that
there is any order passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the
petitioner herein to raise construction in the suit land. Under such
circumstances, there was no necessity of making observations by the
learned First Appellate Court at paragraph No. 19 of the impugned
judgment.
9. It is the opinion of this Court that paragraph No. 20 of the impugned
order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned First Appellate Court had
modified the order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court
and thereby directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit
property, more particularly, the Schedule B land which have been
described in the plaint. In that view of the matter, the instant
proceedings stands closed with the above observations.
10. Before parting with the record this Court, however, finds it relevant
to observe that the above observations so made is on the basis that the
petitioner herein had only sought for a temporary prohibitory injunction
as would appear from the injunction application registered as Misc (J)
Case No. 20/2022.
11. It is further observed that observations made herein shall not
preclude the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking temporary
mandatory injunction, if so advised. In such circumstances, if such
Page No.# 6/6
application is filed, the learned Trial Court shall adjudicate the same in
accordance with law.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
