Allowed¶43

Shahnaz Rasul and 3 Ors. v. Kiran Mamtaz Rasul and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Jul 2026I.A.(Civil)/3322/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court interlocutory application Order 39 Rule 1&2 Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure 1908; temporary injunction status quo restraint on collection of rent; Section 65 Indian Evidence Act; RSA No. 200/2024; T.S. No 33/2007 Civil Judge No.1 Kamrup(M); R.F.A. 20/2013; T.A. No. 19/22 Addl. District Judge No.5 Kamrup(M); judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012; tenant M/S MEENUS; Rasul family property dispute Danish Road Lakhtokia Guwahati; prima facie case balance of convenience irreparable loss; Justice Robin Phukan.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application allowed: parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as on today, and the opposite parties restrained from collecting rent from the tenants, in both cases till disposal of RSA No. 200/2024. ¶43

Shahnaz Rasul and 3 Ors. Vs Kiran Mamtaz Rasul and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether, during the pendency of RSA No. 200/2024, the suit property should be protected by directing the defendants/opposite parties to maintain status quo, in view of the petitioners' apprehension that the defendants may alienate the properties, change the nature and character of the suit properties and/or create encumbrances, causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioners. +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The key principles for grant of injunction - prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss - appear in favour of the petitioners: the suit was decreed by the trial court declaring their right, title and interest, while the first appellate court's reversal rested only on a technical ground.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as on today, till disposal of the RSA.

¶44

Key takeaways

Though the counsel for the opposite parties objected to restraining them from collecting rent, the court was not inclined to accept the objection; the opposite parties are restrained from collecting rent from the tenants till disposal of the appeal.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan) - I.A.(Civil)/3322/2024, decided 16.07.2026. An interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners (Shahnaz Rasul and 3 Ors) during the pendency of their admitted regular second appeal RSA No. 200/2024, sought protection of the suit property. Background: in T.S. No 33/2007 (Civil Judge No.1 Kamrup(M)) the defendants' written statement had admitted the plaintiffs' title; the suit was decreed in the plaintiffs' favour on 19.10.2012 declaring their right, title and interest and restraining the defendants from collecting rent; the defendants' appeal (first R.F.A. 20/2013 before this Court, then T.A. No. 19/22 before learned Addl. District Judge No.5 Kamrup(M)) reversed the trial court decree solely on the ground of non-fulfillment of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1876. Finding prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in the petitioners' favour, the Court allowed the application: the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property as on today, and, despite the respondents' objection, the opposite parties were restrained from collecting rent from the tenants, in both respects till disposal of the RSA.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010225752024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3322/2024

¶6

SHAHNAZ RASUL AND 3 ORS

¶7

D/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL, RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD, LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001, ASSSAM

¶8

2: SRI EVAN ZIAUR RASUL S/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL

¶9

RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM

¶10

3: SMTI. NAFISA RASUL D/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL

¶11

RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM

¶12

4: SRI ZOHEB RASUL S/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL

¶13

RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSA

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

KIRAN MAMTAZ RASUL AND 2 ORS

¶16

W/O LATE IMTIAZ RASUL, RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD, LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001, ASSAM

¶17

2:MD. INTEKAB RASUL

¶18

S/O LATE IMTIAZ RASUL

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM

¶21

3:MD. ISTEEAK RASUL W/O LATE IMTIAZ RASUL

¶22

RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSA

¶23

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GHOSH, MR. M SARMA,MR P BHARDWAJ,MR. M K CHOUDHURY

¶24

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶25

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Date :16.07.2026

¶28

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Ghosh for the applicants. Also heard Mr. T. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

2. This interlocutory application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is preferred for granting injunction.

¶30

3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners, as plaintiffs, instituted T.S. No 33/2007 in the court of learned Civil Judge No.1 Kamrup(M) against the Opp. Parties for a decree declaring plaintiffs right, title and interest and exclusive possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule A & B property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from collecting rent from the tenant M/S MEENUS. In the

¶31

Page No.# 3/5

¶32

said suit, the predecessor in interest of the Opp. Parties appeared and filed written statement title of the petitioners/plaintiffs was admitted.

¶33

4. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012 by declaring the right, title and interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs and granted injunction restraining the Opp. Parties to collect the rent from the tenant.

¶34

5. Then being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012, the Opp. Parties preferred Regular First Appeal before this Court which was numbered as R.F.A. 20/2013 and subsequently the same was transferred to the court of learned Addl. District Judge No.5 Kamrup(M) due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same is Numbered as T.A. No. 19/22. The learned First Appellate Court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court only on the ground of non fulfillment of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1876.

¶35

6. Being aggrieved, the present petitioners preferred one regular second appeal, being RSA No. 200/2024 and the same was admitted and now it is pending for hearing. However, the petitioners apprehend that during the pendency of the present appeal the defendants may alienate the properties, change the nature and character of the suit properties and/or create encumbrances.

¶36

7. Therefore, the suit property may be protected by directing the defendants/opposite parties to maintain status quo in respect to the suit

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

properties and also to restrain the Opp. Parties from collecting the rent from the tenant, else, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶39

8. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection in the event of directing the parties to maintain the status quo till disposal of the RSA. However, he submits that he has objection in restraining the opposite parties in collecting rent of the suit property.

¶40

9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties this court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record.

¶41

10. It appears that the basic facts here in this petition are not in dispute. The RSA has already been admitted for hearing. The records of learned courts below also received. The matter is also ready for hearing.

¶42

11. Also gone through the Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC which govern grant of temporary injunction to preserve the suit property until the appeal of suit is decided. It also appears that the key principles in granting injunction, i.e. prima-facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss appears to be in favour of the petitioners. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court declaring the right, title and interest in favour of petitioners; however the same was reversed by the learned first appellate court on technical ground.

¶43

12. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this petition stands allowed.

¶44

13. The parties are, accordingly, directed to maintain status quo in

¶45

Page No.# 5/5

¶46

respect of the suit property as on today, till disposal of the RSA.

¶47

14. Though, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has objected in restraining the opposite parties from collecting the rent, yet, considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this court is not inclined to accept the same. The opposite parties are restrained from collecting the rent from the tenants, till disposal of the appeal.

¶48

15. In terms of above this application stands disposed of.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Shahnaz Rasul and 3 Ors. v. Kiran Mamtaz Rasul and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnaz Rasul and 3 Ors. v. Kiran Mamtaz Rasul 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

On the Death of Late Pankaj Kumar Das His Legal Heirs Vs Smtimadhabi Mazumder

Project Director National Highways Authority of India NHAI Vs Jai Prakash Prasad

Partha Pratim Das @ Sunti Das Vs Anil Boruah

Ramesh Chandra Chakraborty Trust Estate and Anr. Vs Ravi Kumar Sureka and Anr.

Ananta Boiragi Vs Pramila Kalita

Ananta Boiragi Vs Pramila Kalita