Gauhati High Court
Shri Ashok Kumar Ray vs Smti Anamika Choudhury And Anr on 2 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010102872025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/72/2025
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR RAY
SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD RAY, RESIDENT OF ABC, HOUSE NO.10,
TARUN NAGAR, BY LANE NO.3, GUWAHATI-05, DIST-KAMRUP (M),
ASSAM.
VERSUS
SMTI ANAMIKA CHOUDHURY AND ANR
WIFE OF SRI ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT OF REHABARI, A.K.
AZAD ROAD, P.S.- PALTANBAZAR, DISTRICTKAMRUP(M), ASSAM,
GUWAHATI781008.
2:SRI SURJIT SINGH
SON OF LATE SURESH PRASAD SINGH
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.9
LANE NO.3
TARUN NAGAR
ABC
GUWAHATI-05
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. A. Das, Advocate
For the respondent (s) : Mr. N. Alam, Advocate
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
02.06.2025
Issue notice making it returnable on 06.08.2025.
2. Steps be taken upon the respondent No.2 by way of
registered post with A/D as well as through usual process within 3
(three) days.
3. As regards the respondent No.1, Mr. N. Alam, the learned
counsel appears and accepts notice as he is already on caveat.
4. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked
challenging the order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.
1164/2023 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division) No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had rejected the
application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint in Title Suit
No.574/2023.
5. Mr. A. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the Agreement for Sale was entered into
on 28.12.2008 for sale of a plot of land admeasuring 17 lechas.
Although the Agreement for Sale did not mention the date fixed for
performance, but the clauses of the Agreement for Sale would
Page No.# 3/4
show that how the performance was required to be carried out.
Referring the Clause 3 of the Agreement for Sale dated
28.12.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
what is required is that the petitioner was to obtain the requisite
permission at the cost of the respondent No.1 and thereupon after
obtaining the permission, the Deed of Sale is required to be
executed in favour of the respondent No.1.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as
obtaining a permission is one of the requisites for sale of the land
as per the terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 28.12.2008, the
permission having not been obtained as has been admitted by the
plaintiff in the plaint at paragraph No.6 clearly goes to show that
the plaintiff had noticed that the defendant No.1 had refused.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
the plaint is completely silent as regards the period from 2012 to
2023. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Fatehji & Company & Another vs. L. M. Nagpal & Others , reported
in (2015) 8 SCC 390, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submitted that the instant case is squarely covered
by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said judgment, and
as such, this is a case where this Court ought to exercise the
revisional jurisdiction.
8. This Court has also heard Mr. N. Alam, the learned counsel
Page No.# 4/4
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that he requires further
time to address this Court.
9. This Court having perused the plaint as well as the Agreement
for Sale dated 28.12.2008 and the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Fatehji & Company (supra) is of the opinion that the
petitioner herein has able to make out a case for stay of the further
proceedings of Title Suit No.574//2023.
10. Accordingly, the further proceedings of Title Suit No.574/2023
pending in the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)
No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati shall remain stayed till the next
date.
11. List accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
