Disposed

Ajay Agarwalla v. Mirza Ahmed @ Mirza Bagom @ Mary Nessa and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Jan 2020CRP(I/O)/411/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an application under Article 227 challenging an order refusing police assistance to enforce an injunction. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to pass appropriate orders within the outer limit. No merits were examined.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the learned Munsiff to pass appropriate orders in the underlying matter within the outer period.

Ajay Agarwalla Vs Mirza Ahmed @ Mirza Bagom @ Mary Nessa… — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010308562019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 411/2019

¶5

1:AJAY AGARWALLA

¶6

S/O- SRI SHEW BHAGWAN AGARWALLA, AN EARLIER R/O- FLAT NO. DW 3, LANDMARK RESIDENCY, MG ROAD, GUWAHATI AND PRESENT R/OFLAT NO. 5C, GOLDEN WOODS APARTMENTS, RG BARUAH ROAD, SUNDERPUR, GUWAHATI- 781005, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:MIRZA AHMED @ MIRZA BAGOM @ MARY NESSA AND 2 ORS W/O- LATE ASHANULLA ALI AHMED AN EARLIER R/O- SC GOSWAMI ROAD, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001 AND PRESENT R/O- H NO. 50, KACHARIBASTI, NEAR PASSPORT SEWA KENDRA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI781005, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶9

2:HASHIBUDDIN AHMED S/O- LATE MAHATABUDDIN AHMED R/O- H NO. 13 GANDHI BASTI LALMATI GUWAHATI- 781003 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶10

3:RAKIBUDDIN AHMED S/O- LATE MAHTABUDDIN AHMED R/O- H NO. 13 GANDHI BASTI LALMATI GUWAHATI- 781003 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M MORE

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D DAS SR. ADV (R1, R2)

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 09-01-2020

¶18

Heard Mr. P.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2.

¶19

In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice upon the respondent No.3 is dispensed with.

¶20

By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.376/2019 arising out of Misc.(J) Case No. 370/2019 in T.S. No.2/2019.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by virtue of an order of injunction passed on 21.10.2019 by the said learned Court in Misc. (J). Case No.370/2019, ad-interim injunction was granted directing the respondent to open the lock of the tenanted premises which was used as a shop. As the said order was not complied with, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was filed which was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.376/2019.

¶22

It is submitted that in that connection, the petitioner sought for police assistance for opening of the lock which was registered as petition No.4150. It is also submitted that petition No.4150 as well as petition No.4149 was together registered as Misc.(J) Case No.376/2019.

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2019 because instead of passing an appropriate order for police assistance to open the lock, the learned trial Court had issued notice fixing 10.01.2020 for service report and objection.

¶25

It is submitted that as the injunction order was not complied with and violation of the order was alleged, the learned trial Court ought to have exercised power under section 151 CPC for allowing police assistance to remove the lock. It is submitted that by the casual approach of the learned trial Court, the delay which has resultantly occurred is against the interest of the petitioner because his business establishment has remained closed despite the order of ad-interim injunction for removal of the lock.

¶26

The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 has vehemently objected to the prayer and to the application. It is submitted that as the matter is fixed before the learned trial Court on 10.01.2020, the learned trial Court may be left with liberty to deal with the application in accordance with law.

¶27

On a query made by the Court, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he will instruct the respondents No.1 and 2 to positively file their response in connection with Misc. (J) Case No.376/2019 on the date fixed.

¶28

In view of such assurance, the Court is inclined to close the present application with a direction to the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to make all endeavour to pass appropriate order in accordance with law in connection with Misc. (J) Case No.376/2015 within the outer period of 30.01.2020.

¶29

It is needless to say that as the merit of this application has not been gone into, it would be open to both sides to place their respective plea before the learned trial Court.

¶30

This application stands disposed of.

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Ajay Agarwalla v. Mirza Ahmed @ Mirza Bagom @ Mary Nessa and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Agarwalla v. Mirza Ahmed @ Mirza Bagom @ Mary Nessa and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anami Rabha Vs Fukanta Rabha and 3 Ors.

Ananda Gogoi Vs Rebot Kumar Borgohain

Himadri Sankar Dutta and 3 Ors. Vs Rekha Paul and 9 Ors.

Sanjeeb Rava @ Sonjib Rabha Vs Rukmini Sahu and Anr.

Chandra Kanta Bordoloi and 10 Ors. Vs Santiram Pator and 12 Ors.

Sarat Kalita and 3 Ors. Vs Gobinda Baishya and 4 Ors.