B.K. Builders and Enterprise and 2 Ors. Vs M/S R.B. Engineering and Co. (I) and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010196312025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:12304

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/388/2025

¶6

B.K. BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISE AND 2 ORS.

¶7

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 14-LAKHIMI PATH, NABIN NAGAR, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-781024, DISTKAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶8

2: SMTI. TUN BARKATAKY W/O LATE AJIT BARKATAKY R/O 14-LAKHIMI PATH NABIN NAGAR R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-781024 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3: ANEESH BARKATAKY S/O LATE AJIT BARKATAKY R/O 14-LAKHIMI PATH NABIN NAGAR R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-781024 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/S R.B. ENGINEERING AND CO. (I) AND 2 ORS

¶11

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MAYA APARTMENT, NEW GUWAHATI, NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-20, P.S.- NOONMATI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

¶12

2:RIPUN BHUYAN S/O LATE MAYARAM BHUYAN R/O NEW GUWAHATI NOONMATI

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

GUWAHATI-20 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:PRANAB JYOTI BARMAN S/O PROMODE CH. BARMAN R/O H. NO. 31 NAMGHAR PATH RUKMINI NAGAR GUWAHATI-06 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K NATH, MS M DAS

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶18

ORDER

¶19

10.09.2025

¶20

Heard learned counsel Mr. D. K. Nath for the petitioners namely (i) B. K. Builders & Enterprise, (ii) Smt. Tun Barkataky, and (iii) Aneesh Barkataky.

¶21

The respondents in this case are, (i) M/s R. B. Engineering & Co., (ii) Sri Ripun Bhuyan, and (iii) Pranab Jyoti Barman, who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

¶22

It is submitted that the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the shareholders of the building i.e., “Kay M Plaza” located at Ganeshguri. It is submitted that the petitioners were the original owners of the plot of land and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as builders became shareholders after construction of the building. Both the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also been taking care of the building on a partnership basis. A dispute arose between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 3 and a Title suit

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the respondent No. 3 which was registered as T.S. No. 516/2022.

¶25

The suit property in the Title suit is clearly described in the Schedule-B of the plaint which is also mentioned herein below:-

¶26

“All that a Shop Room Nos. 1,2,3,4,4A,8,9 & 10 measuring 3308 sq ft at the Second Floor of RCC building in the name and style of "KAY M PLAZA", which is situated over Schedule-A i.e a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 3 Kathas 1.5 Lechas covered by Dag No.407 of K.P.Patta No.28 of village: Dispur, Mouza: Beltola, Kamrup (M), Assam.”

¶27

This Title suit is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Kamrup (M). At present, the petitioners are willing to sell and rent out their share of commercial enclosures and other rooms and enclosures to the proposed purchasers and tenants. The petitioners are unable to proceed with the sale and rent of the property belonging to the petitioners as Form-50 was issued in favour of the petitioners with a note by the Sheristadar relating to the litigation i.e., T.S. No. 516/2022. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that this has been erroneously inserted in the Form-50 by the Sheristadar as the petitioners have clearly mentioned through their applications before the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned District Judge that they are willing to sell or rent 990 Sq.Ft. at Room No. 16, 17 and 18 on the 2^nd floor of the building standing over Dag No. 407 covered by KP No. 28 at Dispur, Mouza-Beltola under Dispur Revenue circle. Another commercial space with a carpet area of 1100 Sq.Ft. in the same building is proposed to be lent out on rent.

¶28

It is apparent that the aforementioned commercial space/rooms are not the rooms described in the Schedule-B of the plaint which is the property in dispute between the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with the respondent No. 3. The plaint is marked as Annexure-1 of this petition and the Form-50 issued from the Office of the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) No. 2, is marked as Annexure-8 &

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

9 of this petition.

¶31

As the petitioners are also arrayed as proforma defendants in the Title suit, they are unable to sell their own property as well as let out their own property on rent. The note of the Sheristadar on Annexure-8 & 9 clearly reflects that a litigation is pending in the name of the applicant relating to the Scheduled property in connection with T.S. No. 516/2022, which is pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Kamrup (M).

¶32

I have also considered the submission that the application has been filed by the petitioner jointly with the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which is marked as Annexure-6 of this petition. It is clearly mentioned in the Annexure-6 that the RCC building i.e., “Kay M Plaza” is standing on the Schedule-A land but the suit is pending only against Schedule-B commercial space.

¶33

In this case, if the Schedule-B space/property is compared with the Schedule described in Annexure-8 & 9 of this petition, it is manifestly clear that the suit property is not similar to the enclosures described in Annexure-8 & 9 of this petition.

¶34

Thereby, the Court, where the T.S. No. 516/2022 is pending, is directed to verify and compare the suit property along with the property of the present petitioners who are also arrayed as proforma defendants in the aforementioned Title suit and the Court may direct its Office to issue Form-50 after proper verification of the suit property vis-à-vis, the property described in Annexure-8 & 9 of this petition which is the earlier Form-50 issued to the petitioners/proforma defendants of T.S. No. 516/2022. The matter to be dealt with by the Court as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of.

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

B.K. Builders and Enterprise and 2 Ors. v. M/S R.B. Engineering and Co. (I) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.K. Builders and Enterprise and 2 Ors. v. M/S R.B. Engineering and Co. (I) and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Legal Representative of Smti Premi Demta and Anr. Vs Legal Representative of Late Ramji Shah

Legal Representative of Smti Premi Demta and Anr. Vs Legal Representative of Late Ramji Shah

Ajit Saikia Vs Smti. Anjumoni Saikia

Smt Balika Talukdar Vs MD Majnur Ali

Chila Jaychowal @ Shila Jaiswal and 4 Ors. Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Shri Pawan Goswami Vs Basir Miyan @ Basir Ahmed and 3 Ors.