Page No.# 1/16 vs Dilip Kumar Chakravarty And 35 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 2550 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/16 vs Dilip Kumar Chakravarty And 35 Ors on 20 March, 2026

                                                                Page No.# 1/16

GAHC010056872026




                                                           2026:GAU-AS:4285

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : CRP(IO)/88/2026

         NAKIBUR ZAMAN AND 2 ORS.
         SON OF LATE MATLIB ALI, RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QRTR NO 30/, EAST
         GOTANAGAR, MALIGAON, DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM,
         GUWAHATI- 781011

         2: UTTAM KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA
          SON OF DHARANI DHAR BHATTACHARYYA
          RESIDENT OF SURUJ VILLA APARTMENT
          FLAT NO 3A
          GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD
          BARNACHAL
          DIST- KAMRUP (M)
         ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781021

         3: DHIRAJ CHOUDHURY
          SON OF LATE DEBEN CHOUDHURY
          RESIDENT OF ARUNODOI PATH
          HATIGAON
          H. NO 24/A
          GUWAHATI - 781038
          DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         DILIP KUMAR CHAKRAVARTY AND 35 ORS.
         PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE, N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION, RESIDENT OF
         EAST GOTANAGAR, LAKHIMI NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 2 MALIGAON,
         GUWAHATI-781011, ASSAM.

         2:MRINAL KANTI SEAL
         VICE-PRESIDENT DESIGNATE
          N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
          RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SUNGAPOTA (BARPATHAR)
                                             Page No.# 2/16

P.O.- NEW BONGAIGAON
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
PIN CODE- 783381
ASSAM.

3:BISWAJIT ROY
VICE-PRESIDENT DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF SUBHASH PALLY
WARD NO 23
 P.O. JHALJHALIA
 DISTRICT- MALDA
 PIN-732102
WEST BENGAL.

4:PARITOSH PAUL
 JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF ARABINDA ASHRAM SOCIETY ROAD
 BHAKTI NAGAR
WARD NO 35(SMC)
 P.O.- BHAKTINAGAR
 DISTRICT- JALPAIGURI
 PIN-703007
WEST BENGAL.

5:PRADIP CHAKRABORTY
 JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF AASHIYANA APARTMENTS
 NEAR AAROGYA BHAVAN HOSPITAL
 PALTAN BAZAR
 DIBRUGARH
 PIN-786001
ASSAM.

6:BIBHASH JOARDER
 JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF SHIVBARI
 CHECHAKHATA
 NEAR KUAR PAR SHANTI DOOT UNIT
 P.O.- ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION
 DISTRICT- ALIPURDUAR
 PIN-736123
WEST BENGAL

7:SMT MAYURPANKHI SAIKIA
                                         Page No.# 3/16

ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY
DESIGNATE
N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
RESIDENT OF FLAT NO 4(J)
R S COMPLEX
GAKHIRCHOWK
P.O. DEVKOTANAGAR
PASCHIM BORAGAON
GUWAHATI
PIN- 781011
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.

8:UTTAM KUMAR DAS
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF RLY QRTR NO 567/(E/F)
TYPE I-II CONVERT
 KALIBARI COLONY
 BADARPUR
 DISTRICT - KARIMGANJ
 PIN-788806
ASSAM.

9:SMT MADHUMITA DEY PAUL
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE
VILL- SOUTH HILL COLONY
 OPPOSITE RECREATION CLUB
 LUMDING
 DISTRICT- HOJAI
 PIN-782447
ASSAM.

10:JOGINDER SINGH
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QRTR NO 182/A
AUROBINDO COLONY
 P.O.- ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION
 DISTRICT- ALIPURDUAR
 PIN- 736123
WEST BENGAL.

11:SANKAR DAS
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF N-180/A
                                           Page No.# 4/16

NORTH WEST COLONY
NEW BONGAIGAON
P.O.- NEW BONGAIGAON
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
PIN- 783381
ASSAM.

12:DHANJIT PATGIRI
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF QRTR NO E/4A
 SIVASAGAR RAILWAY COLONY
 P.O.- SIVASAGAR
 PIN-785640
ASSAM.

13:SMT TULTULI GHOSH
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF AASHIRBAD APARTMENT
 NEAR NABANKUR CLUB
 NIVEDITA ROAD
 PRADHAN NAGAR
 SILIGURI
 PIN-734003
WEST BENGAL.

14:SAURAV KUMAR SAIKIA
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF RLY QRTR NO 14/B
 EAST GOTANAGAR
 MALIGAON
 GUWAHATI-781011.

15:SUHASH DAS
VICE PRESIDENT DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012

16:GOPAL RAJBONGSHI
VICE PRESIDENT DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
                                         Page No.# 5/16

P.O.- PANDU
GUWAHATI-781012

17:RANJIT CHETIYA
VICE PRESIDENT DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012

18:PIJUSH CHAKRABORTY
 GENERA SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012.

19:SAJAL CHAKRABORTY
TREASURER DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012.

20:SIRIS GOGOI
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012.

21:MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012.

22:ASHUTOSH KUMAR YADAV
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
                                           Page No.# 6/16

P.O.- PANDU
GUWAHATI-781012

23:SAMRAT MITRA
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012

24:BARNAJIT NATH
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012

25:UMA SHANKAR
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012

26:SMT PRIYALATA SONOWAL
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012

27:PRANJAL PRADIP BORA
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 C/O THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 PANDU
 P.O.- PANDU
 GUWAHATI-781012.

28:ASHIS KUMAR BISWAS
WORKING PRESIDENT-DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF 5D
 BAISHAKHI APARTMENT
                                           Page No.# 7/16

DOLAIGAON
BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783380.

29:SANJOY GOSWAMI
 JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF RAILWAY QRTR NO 735/A
 NEW COLONY
 P.O.- KATIHAR
 DISTRICT- KATIHAR
 PIN- 854105
 BIHAR.

30:PANKAJ CHAKRABORTY
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF SUKANTAPALLY
WARD NO 32
 SILIGURI BAZAR
 SILIGURI
 DISTRICT- JALPAIGURI
 PIN- 734005
WEST BENGAL.

31:ALAKESH SUTRADHAR
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF QUARTER NO T III 5A
 BHALUKDUBI RAILWAY COMPLEX
 GOALPARA
 PIN- 783101
ASSAM.

32:KALLOL DEV SARMA
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOLAIGAON
 MAJPARA
 P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON
 DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
 PIN- 783380
ASSAM.

33:ASIM DEKA
 CENTRAL ORGANIZING SECRETARY DESIGNATE
 N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
                                                                      Page No.# 8/16

             RESIDENT OF RAILWAY MARKET
             WARD NO. 3
             P.O. AND P.S. RANGAPARA
             PIN-784505
             DISTRICT- SONITPUR
             ASSAM.

            34:MANTU SARMA
             JOINT GENERAL SECRETARY DESIGNATE
             N.F. RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
             C/O THE NF RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
             PANDU
             P.O.- PANDU
             GUWAHATI- 781012.

            35:THE N F RAILWAY MAZDOOR UNION
            A RECOGNIZED AND REGISTERED UNION UNDER THE INDIAN TRADE
            UNION ACT
             1926 WITH REGN NO 425
            AND AFFILIATED TO THE ALL INDIA RAILWAYMEN FEDERATION AND
            HIND MAZDOOR SABHA
             HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT PANDU
             P.O.- PANDU
             GUWAHATI- 781012
            ASSAM
             REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

            36:S K TYAGI
            ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY
             C/O ALL INDIA RAILWAYMEN FEDERATION
             4
             STATE ENTRY ROAD
             NEW DELHI-110055 AND DEPUTED OBSERVER FOR THE ELECTIONS
            CONDUCTED FROM 3RD TO 5TH APRIL
             2025
             FOR THE POSTS OF CENTRAL OFFICE BEARERS OF THE N F RAILWAY
            MAZDOOR UNIO

Advocate for the Petitioner   : DR G J SHARMA, MS. K BHATTACHARYYA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D MOZUMDER (FOR CAVEATOR), MR. D MAZUMDAR
(FOR CAVEATOR),MR C GOGOI (FOR CAVEATOR)
                                                                        Page No.# 9/16

                                BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

                                      ORDER

Date : 20.03.2026

Heard Dr. G.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also Mr. D. Mozumder, learned counsel appears for the Caveator. The caveat is filed by the respondents who are 27 in numbers.

2. The caveat stands discharged.

3. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the three petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil judge, Senior Division No.3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/2026, whereby, the learned appellate Court was pleased to stay the order dated, 19.01.2026 passed by the learned trial Court, being the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 2, Kamrup (M), in Misc. J. Case No. 187 of 2025.

4. Before proceeding further, the facts in a nutshell. The petitioners as plaintiffs have preferred Title Suit No. 127/2025 before the learned Trial Court mentioned above, whereby, they have challenged Election dated 05.04.2025 to the 35 posts of Central Office Bearers of the Working Committee of the General Body of NF Railway, Mazdoor Union (hereinafter NFRMU). Contending that there were gross irregularities in the election, it has been prayed in the suit to declare the election as null and void.

5. In the same suit, the plaintiffs filed an application and prayed for temporary injunction invoking the provisions of Order 39 CPC, which was registered as Misc. J. Case No. 187/2026.

Page No.# 10/16

6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to allow the prayer for temporary injunction and the defendants/opposite parties were directed not to undertake any of the duties and responsibilities of the office of the union.

7. The defendants were stated to be elected as office bearers in the aforementioned election to the NFRMU. Aggrieved by the grant of the temporary injunction by the learned trial Court, the defendants took up the matter in appeal, which was registered as Misc Appeal No. 02/2026 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and the notice was issued on the appeal. However, in Para-9, the learned Appellate Court stayed the impugned order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court in Misc. J. Case No. 187 of 25, as mentioned above.

8. The reasoning given by the learned Appellate Court is that till the appeal is decided, if the order passed by the learned trial Court remains in existence, the purpose of the appeal would become infructuous. Though respondent nos. 28 to 36 have been impleaded as proforma respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 27 respondents have agreed that the matter can be disposed of at this stage and that the same would not prejudice the proforma respondents.

9. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has taken the Court through the various documents annexed to the revision petition and contended that the result of the Election has statutory force as revealed by the RTI reply furnished to him vide RTI reply dated 03.06.2025.

10. It is contended that the learned trial Court rightly granted the temporary Page No.# 11/16

injunction. With regard to the temporary injunction vis-à-vis the suit filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff, it is submitted that there were gross irregularities in the conduct of the election.

11. It is submitted that the Constitution of the Union did not have any provision for Observer and yet the Assistant General Secretary from the All India Railway Federation, who was deputed as Observer, conducted the election and unauthorisedly took up the role of the Returning Officer.

12. It is submitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs have been continuing as Office Bearers from the earlier tenures and due to the infirmities in the election which is being challenged, they should be allowed to continue and the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order in that direction by way of a temporary injunction. Taking the Court to the relevant annexed document in this regard, it is submitted that with regard to plaintiff No.2, there was a discrepancy in the number of ballot papers, as the 3 ballot papers were found to be unauthorizedly extra and thereby, vitiating the electoral process and that the plaintiff No. 2 had lost by a narrow margin.

13. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the appeal has to be decided, the impugned order of temporary stay granted by the appellate Court may be interfered with and that otherwise, the petitioner shall be prejudiced.

14. On the other hand, Mr. D. Mozumder, learned Senior Counsel has taken the Court through the contents of the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court and contended that the learned trial Court has not properly discussed and recorded findings with regard to the well-settled triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

Page No.# 12/16

15. It is submitted that there is no discussion with regard to the aspect of finding a prima facie case. Referring to Para-26 of the order of injunction, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the observation and holding by the learned trial Court that if the newly appointed body is allowed to function, the main suit may become infructuous is incorrect application of the test of irreparable loss and injury.

16. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in such a situation, the appellate Court, while entertaining the appeal, has rightly put the order of injunction of the learned trial Court on hold because of its prima facie infirmities. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court :-

(i) Thiru K. Palaniswamy Vs. M. Shanmugam and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 177.

(ii) Sheik Dada Miah and Ors. Vs. S. Ziyaur Rahiman and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine AP 139.

17. I have perused the relevant materials, the relevant orders, order of the learned Trial Court and the impugned order of the Appellate Court. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels in both the parties and the case law.

18. I have carefully perused the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court granting temporary injunction.

19. With regard to the aspect of prima facie case, the learned trial Court has

stated that-- the main dispute is whether the election held in the 66 th AGM and

14th BGM of the NFRMU was fair or not. It is to be determined as to whether the election process was conducted in a proper manner and in a non-prejudicial Page No.# 13/16

manner.

20. The learner Trial Court held that this dispute has to be determined in the main suit, and therefore, there is prima facie case. The learned trial Court has also referred to the discrepancy in ballot paper pointed out by the plaintiffs' side. The learned trial Court has held that a balance of convenience lies in favor of the petitioners/plaintiff seeking injunction.

21. With regard to the aspect of irreparable loss and injury, the Para-26 of the said order may be reproduced herein below:-

Irreparable loss and injury

"26. Now, the tenure of the newly appointed Body is of two years and already about eight months have passed by till now. Under such circumstances, if the newly appointed body is allowed to function, the main suit itself may become infructuous and the whole purpose of filling the suit might be defeated."

22. I have perused para-9 of the order dated 02.02.2026 (impugned order) passed by the appellate Court staying the order of temporary injunction, while entertaining the appeal.

23. In the case of Thiru K. Palaniswamy (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has delved into the principles regarding grant of interim relief, after referring to the case of Union of India versus Raj Grow Impex LLP, 2021 SCC Online, SC 429.

24. Para-73 of Thiru K. Palaniswamy Vs. M. Shanmugam and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 177 may be reproduced herein below:-

"73. Apart from the above, we may also take note of the principles in relation to the matters concerning grant of interim relief, which have been stated and re- emphasised by this Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP and Ors.: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 429 as follows: -

"194. In addition to the general principles for exercise of discretion, as Page No.# 14/16

discussed hereinbefore, a few features specific to the matters of interim relief need special mention. It is rather elementary that in the matters of grant of interim relief, satisfaction of the Court only about existence of prima facie case in favour of the suitor is not enough. The other elements i.e., balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury, are not of empty formality and carry their own relevance; and while exercising its discretion in the matter of interim relief and adopting a particular course, the Court needs to weigh the risk of injustice, if ultimately the decision of main matter runs counter to the course being adopted at the time of granting or refusing the interim relief. We may usefully refer to the relevant principle stated in the decision of Chancery Division in Films Rover International Ltd. v. Cannon Film Sales Ltd. : (1986) 3 All ER 772 as under:-- "

....The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the "wrong" decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been "wrong" in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle." (emphasis in bold supplied)

195. While referring to various expositions in the said decision, this Court, in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden : (1990) 2 SCC 117 observed as under:-- "16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:

(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction.

(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.

(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.

17. Being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory Page No.# 15/16

mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the sound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above guidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules, and there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying them as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions would be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion." (emphasis in bold supplied)

196. In keeping with the principles aforesaid, one of the simple questions to be adverted to at the threshold stage in the present cases was, as to whether the importers (writ petitioners) were likely to suffer irreparable injury in case the interim relief was denied and they were to ultimately succeed in the writ petitions. A direct answer to this question would have made it clear that their injury, if at all, would have been of some amount of loss of profit, which could always be measured in monetary terms and, usually, cannot be regarded as an irreparable one. Another simple but pertinent question would have been concerning the element of balance of convenience; and a simple answer to the same would have further shown that the inconvenience which the importers were going to suffer because of the notifications in question was far lesser than the inconvenience which the appellants were going to suffer (with ultimate impact on national interest) in case operation of the notifications was stayed and thereby, the markets of India were allowed to be flooded with excessive quantity of the said imported peas/pulses."

25. In the instant case, the respondents, who were temporarily injuncted from functioning as Office Bearers, were elected as such Office Bearers pursuant to the last election, which is of course under challenge in the Title Suit.

26. The learned Senior Counsel denying anomalies in the election process, has contended that the injunction order is clearly wrong in prohibiting and barring the office of the respondents, who were duly elected affected in such election, and therefore, the operation of the same has been rightly stayed by the Appellate Court.

27. Needless to say that the merit of the injunction order is a subject matter of the appeal and the learned Appellate Court is in seisin of the same.

28. In this revision petition, this Court is only on the limited question of whether the stay of the temporary injunction should be allowed to continue or Page No.# 16/16

not while the appeal is being decided.

29. Going into further details of the merit or otherwise of the injunction order could prejudice the determination by the Appellate Court. However, upon perusing the grounds and the discussion of the learning trial Court in the, temporary injunction order and the facts and circumstances which have emerged as contended by both the sides - I am of the considered view that the order of stay granted by the Appellate Court should not be disturbed at this stage - while the appeal is being decided.

30. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances and in such view of the matter, I do not find sufficient merit in the revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the Appellate Court {learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.3, Kamrup(M)}, Guwahati in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/2026, arising out of T.S. No.127/2025. Resultantly, the revision stands dismissed and disposed of.

31. Needless to say that despite the docket load, the learned Appellate Court shall endeavor to dispose of the appeal, at the earliest convenience.

32. The instant revision petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant