Partly allowed

Taba Takar v. Techi Menia

Gauhati HC11 Jul 2023IA(C)/120/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an application vacating an interim order directing status quo in a second appeal. The court held no interim order lies under Section 100 CPC unless the appeal is admitted after formulating a substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory application was allowed and the interim order dated 09.06.2023 directing parties to maintain status quo was vacated.

Taba Takar Vs Techi Menia — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040009062023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : IA(C)/120/2023

¶5

Taba Takar S/o Shri Taba Teshi,

¶6

a Resident of Model Village, Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. (m) 9856345576

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Techi Menia Wife of Shri Techi Mania Tara,

¶9

a Resident of Model Village, Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, PO/PS Naharlagun, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tama

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : Tshering Yangzom Bhutia

¶12

Linked Case : RSA/5/2023

¶13

Techi Menia Age: 50 Occupation : Address:W/o Techi Mania Tara a Resident of Model Village Naharlagun PO/PS Naharlagun District Papum Pare AP

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

VERSUS Taba Takar Age: 0 Occupation : Address:S/o Shri Taba Teshi a Resident of Model Village Naharlagun PO/PS Naharlagun District Papum Pare AP. -----------Advocate for : Muk Pertin Senior Advocate Advocate for : Khoda Tama appearing for Taba Takar: Advocate appearing for respectively.

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 11.07.2023

¶20

Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant.

¶21

This is an application, filed by the applicant for alteration of the order dated 09.06.2023, passed by this Court in RSA/5(AP)2023 whereby, while issuing notice to the respondents in the Regular Second Appeal, an interim order has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo till the returnable date.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no interim order could have been passed by the Court in the second appeal filed under

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

Section 100 of the CPC, 1908, without the second appeal having been admitted after formulation of substantial question of law.

¶25

On perusal of the order dated 09.06.2023, passed in RSA/5(AP)2023, it appears that notice to the sole respondent in the second appeal was issued without formulation of a substantial question of law involved in the appeal and thereafter, an interim order of maintaining status quo till the returnable date, has been passed.

¶26

Upon consideration of the contention raised as above and in view of the settled proposition of law that second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, 1908, cannot be admitted without formulation of substantial question of law arising for determination in the case and no interim order can be passed unless the second appeal is admitted; this Interlocutory application is hereby allowed and the interim order dated 09.06.2023 to the extent the parties have been directed to maintain status quo till the returnable date, is hereby vacated.

¶27

The Interlocutory application stands disposed of in terms of above.

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Taba Takar v. Techi Menia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taba Takar v. Techi Menia

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

M/s Palo Malo Enterprise Vs the State of Ap and 8 Ors.

Suppani Manpoong Vs the State of Ap and 7 Ors.

Oson Taying,S/O Shri Toleng Taying, Vs the State of Ap

Mago Niji Vs the State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Nyamo Rina Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Gambu Thinley and 3 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 9 Others