CRP 307/2016. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP 307/2016 |
| Judgement Date | April 03, 2021 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
C.R.P. NO. 307/ 2016
Md. Samsuddin & another … Petitioners -Vs-
Md. Sabjali Ali & others … RespondentS
For the petitioners: Mr. J. Ahmed,
Mr. S. Das,
Miss. D. Bora,
Mr. A. Haque,
Miss. S. Kalita,
Miss. M. Begum, Advs.
For the respondents: Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Adv.
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
Date of hearing : 29-03-2017 Date of judgment : 03-04-2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( CAV)
Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2) This revision has been filed by invoking Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of I ndia. The challenge in this revision is the first appellate order dated 20.07.2016 passed under Order XLI I I Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in Misc. Appeal No.
CRP No.307/ 2016 Page 1 of
2/ 2016, upholding the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Morigaon in Misc. (J) Case No. 63/ 2015 arising out of T.S. No. 56/ 2015, thereby rejecting the prayer to grant ad-interim injunction.
3) The case of the parties is that the petitioners are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 56/ 2015. They claim that their predecessor-in-interest had purchased the suit land measuring 2 Bigha- 2 Katha- 10 Lechas by an unregistered Sale Deed in the year 1972, but somehow got their names mutated in the record of rights as per order dated 24.03.1973 passed by the Circle Officer. The land-owner had sold the suit land to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents vide Registered Sale Deed No. 9485 dated 28.10.1975. Thereafter, the land-owner again sold the suit land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners by Registered Sale Deed No. 10874/ 75 dated 27.12.1975. Both parties claimed to be in possession of the suit land. As this revision involves the question of injunction, no other facts are deemed relevant at this stage, because if any other issues are gone into, the same could cause prejudice to either of the parties.
4) By filing the injunction application before the learned trial court, the petitioner prayed for an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from entering into the suit land. The said learned court arrived at a finding that the respondents were in possession of the suit land since the year 2012 wherein coriander...
To continue reading
Request your trial