ACTING SYIEM OF HIMA MYLLIEM Vs. BIDINGTON KHARIR
LAWS(MEGH)-2020-1-12
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Decided on January 28,2020

Acting Syiem Of Hima Mylliem Appellant
VERSUS
Bidington Kharir Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,CJ. - (1.) This Civil Revision Application has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Rule 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2018 passed in Misc. Case No.24 of 2018 and order dated 06.05.2019 passed in Title Suit No.3 of 2018, by the Judge District Council Court, Shillong.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted a Title Suit No.3 of 2018 before the Judge, District Council Court, Shillong against the petitioner, praying for declaration and permanent injunction, along with an application for interim injunction. The Judge, District Council Court, Shillong vide order dated 04.09.2018 granted ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent, restraining the petitioner from terminating the Lease Deed dated 11.09.2017 and further restraining the petitioner from disturbing and interfering with the peaceful collection of daily tolls by the respondent at Iewduh. The petitioner/defendant on appearing before the learned court below, filed written statement as well as reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure [CPC], with the prayer for vacating and setting aside the ex-parte injunction order dated 04.09.2018. The respondent/plaintiff filed his reply to the aforesaid application. The learned court below vide order 03.10.2018 allowed the application by setting aside the ex-parte injunction order dated 04.09.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/plaintiff preferred a Civil Revision Petition before this Court. On hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated 13.11.2018 set aside the order dated 03.10.2018 and directed the court below to first frame the issues and decide by a speaking order whether or not it has the jurisdiction and who should be the necessary party. It was thereafter that the learned court below vide order dated 12.02.2019 has framed as many as 10 (ten) issues.
(3.) The petitioner/defendant on 20.03.2019 filed an application, under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC, praying for preliminary hearing on maintainability of the suit, and deciding issues No.(i), (ii) and (iii) with regard to (i) whether the suit is maintainable; (ii) whether the suit is bad for non-rejoinder of necessary parties and; (iii) whether the court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. On hearing the arguments, the learned court below vide order dated 06.05.2019 dismissed that application. It was thereafter that the petitioner/defendant has approached this Court by means of the present Civil Revision Petition to challenge the aforesaid two orders dated 04.09.2018 and 06.05.2019.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.