MD. BADSHAH HUSSAIN Vs. BUDHIN CHUTIA @ BUDDHINDA CHUTIA
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-156
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 07,2018

Md. Badshah Hussain Appellant
VERSUS
Budhin Chutia @ Buddhinda Chutia Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KALYAN RAI SURANA,J. - (1.) The matter was heard-in-part on 22.02.2018 when this Court had heard Mr. S. Murarka, learned counsel for the petitioner, who had concluded his argument. Today, I have heard Mr. J. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) By this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure code, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff at Charaideo, Sonari in Misc. (J) Case No.11/2013 in Title Suit No.1/2012. By the impugned order, the prayer for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC was rejected.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was otherwise fixed at the stage of framing of issues. It is submitted that the suit land wherein houses were constructed have some vacant portion in the northern side and some space on the northern side. It is projected that on 20.05.2012, the respondent had started to construct a pacca path. It is under the said circumstance, the suit being Title Suit No.1/2012 was filed. Along with the said suit, a separate application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, being Misc.(J) Case No.7/2012 was filed praying for ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents from occupying or doing any works/activities including earth filling over the suit land. It is further projected that the learned trial court by the order dated 29.05.2012 granted ad-interim injunction. However, it is alleged that by violating the said order on 06.06.2012, the respondent started some works on the suit land by digging the Schedule-A land and in the process boundary wall of the petitioner was up-rooted along with the door standing therein for ingress and outgress. It is projected that the petitioner had informed the police and also filed an application under Order 29, Rule 2A CPC, being Misc. (J) Case No.12/2012 alleging violation of the ad-interim order of injunction. In the meanwhile, the learned trial court by the order dated 18.06.2012 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.7/2012 vacated the ad-interim order of injunction by directing the parties to maintain status-quo. It is further alleged that even after passing of the order of status-quo on 18.06.2012, the respondent had violated the said order by constructing a bamboo door on 12.07.2012. Therefore, the petitioner had filed another application under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC, alleging violation of the order of statusquo. By continuing with the work, it is alleged that pacca path was constructed by using bricks and sands. Therefore, another application was filed under Order 39, Rule 2A CPC, which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.27/2012.;


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