Sri Lakhyadhar Kalita and 4 Ors. Vs Sri Dipak Ch Pathak and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010113632026

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/230/2026

¶6

SRI LAKHYADHAR KALITA AND 4 ORS

¶7

SON OF LATE GORGORAM KALITA RESIDENT OF SHANKAR PATH LANE, HATIGAON, POLICE STATION- DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM - 781006.

¶8

2: SMTI RUMI KALITA

¶9

WIFE OF LATE HIREN KALITA RESIDENT OF SHANKAR PATH LANE HATIGAON POLICE STATION- DISPUR

¶10

DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM 781006

¶11

3: SMTI BINA KALITA

¶12

WIFE OF LATE DHARESWAR KALITA RESIDENT OF SHANKAR PATH LANE HATIGAON POLICE STATION- DISPUR DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM 781006

¶13

4: SRI RAJIB KALITA

¶14

SON OF LATE NAGEN CH. KALITA RESIDENT OF HATIGARH BAIKUNTHYA PATH POLICE STATION- GEETANAGAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM -781020

¶15

5: SRI DIMBESWAR KHANIKAR SON OF LATE DHANESWAR KHANIKAR RESIDENT OF HATIGARH BAIKUNTHYA PATH POLICE STATION- GEETANAGAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM -78102

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

SRI DIPAK CH PATHAK AND 4 ORS

¶18

SON OF LATE SANKAT SARAN PATHAK RESIDENT OF HASTINAPUR, GANESHGURI, KAMRUP M, ASSAM -781005.

¶19

Page No.# 2/6

¶20

2:SRI HEM CHANDRA KAKOTI SON OF LATE DHARJYOTINATH KAKOTI RESIDENT OF KAHILIPARA POLICE STATION- FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUPM ASSAM-781025 3:SMTI SAROJOO DEVI WIFE OF SRI. PHULENDRA NATH DAS RESIDENT OF HATIGAON L.N.B PATH POLICE STATION- HATIGAON DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM- 781006 4:SRI DHIRENDRA LAL DAS SON OF LATE NADIA CHAN DAS RESIDENT OF ODALBAKRA ROAD NILACHAL PATH POLICE STATION- DISPUR POST OFFICE- LALGANESH DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM -781034 5:SRI ARUN MONDAL SON OF LATE RAMESH MANDAL RESIDENT OF BISHNUPUR POLICE STATION- FATASIL AMBARI DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM -78102

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., MS. D SARMAH,G KAUSHIK,R A LAHKAR,MR R SENSUA

¶22

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶23

BEFORE

¶24

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Date - 10.06.2026

¶27

1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sensua, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶28

Page No.# 3/6

¶29

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners, impugning the order dated 24.04.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 170/2021.

¶30

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the present petitioners are the owners of a plot of land measuring 4 katha 9 lechas situated in Revenue Village – Dispur, Mouza-Beltolta and there was a RCC building on the same plot of land known as “Kalita Complex”. The present respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the Title Suit No. 170/2021, were the tenants of the present petitioners in respect of five shop rooms. The present petitioners had filed a suit against the present respondents for declaration and permanent injunction in connection with the aforesaid 4 kathas 9 lechas of land. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 48/2017.

¶31

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that a mutual settlement was arrived at between the parties and in terms of the said mutual settlement, a deed of agreement was also executed on 07.09.2017 and in terms of the same, the Title Suit No. 48/2017 was disposed of on the basis of a compromise decree.

¶32

5. He submits that according to the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present petitioners constructed five temporary rooms for the respondents and the present petitioners were allowed to complete the construction of new market complex complete. However, he submits that after the respondents were

¶33

Page No.# 4/6

¶34

allowed to occupy the temporary shop rooms, they approached the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 170/2021, praying for protection from forceful eviction and enforcement of the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 07.09.2017.

¶35

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in the meanwhile, the construction of the new market complex has been completed and five rooms are already earmarked to be handed over to the respondents. As such, he submits that since no purpose would be served by the continuation of Title Suit No.170/2021, the present petitioners filed a petition before the Trial Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the Title Suit No. 170/2021. The said petition was registered as Petition No.1017/2025.

¶36

7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the meanwhile, in the said suit, i.e., Title Suit No. 170/2021, the respondents have also filed an application under Order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the said suit and on the basis of the said petition, Misc (J) Case No. 149/2021 was registered. He submits that in the said case, parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.

¶37

8. He further submits that against the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for dismissal of the suit, the respondent had also filed written objection against

¶38

Page No.# 5/6

¶39

the same and considering the contentions raised by the respondents in their written objection, the Trial Court, by the impugned order, held that it is not the proper stage to come to a definite conclusion regarding the contentions raised by both the parties and accordingly, the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the present petitioners was dismissed.

¶40

9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the petitioners are mainly concerned about the observations made in the impugned order by the Trial Court while dismissing their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that the petitioners are apprehensive that the observations made by the Trial Court may have a bearing in the outcome of the Misc (J) Case No. 149/2021 as well as the Title Suit No.170/2021 pending before the Trial Court. He, therefore, prays that a direction may be made by this Court so that the same may not have any bearing on the outcome of Misc (J) Case No. 149/2021 as well as the Title Suit No.170/2021 pending before the Trial Court.

¶41

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

¶42

11. It appears on perusal of the impugned order that the respondent sides have raised certain concerns regarding the prayer for dismissal made by the present petitioners in their application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This Court, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, as well as the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners does not find any

¶43

Page No.# 6/6

¶44

apparent error or illegality in the order, which has been impugned in this Revision Petition.

¶45

12. The Trial Court has rightly held that considering the stage at which this suit is pending before it, the same is not at the proper stage to come to a definite conclusion regarding the contentions raised by both the parties. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

13. However, the apprehension shown by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners appears to have some justification. Hence, it is directed that while considering the Misc (J) Case No. 149/2021 as well as the Title Suit No.170/2021, the observations made by the Trial Court in the impugned order dated 24.04.2026 shall have no bearing in the adjudication of the said Misc (J) Case No. 149/2021 as well as Title Suit and they shall be considered on their own merit.

¶47

14. It also appears that the Misc (J) Case No. 149/2021, wherein already an order of status quo has been granted, is pending since last four years, hence, the Trial Court shall make all endeavor to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶48

15. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Sri Lakhyadhar Kalita and 4 Ors. v. Sri Dipak Ch Pathak and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lakhyadhar Kalita and 4 Ors. v. Sri Dipak Ch Pathak and 4 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

The Managing Director and 2 Ors. Vs MD Habibur Rahman

Himangshu Patowary Vs Smti Arati Talukdar and 3 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Deep Shikha Roy Kar and 4 Ors.

Amit Kumar Bora Vs Smt Kripalini Bora and Anr.

Sri Kailash Sahu Vs Smt Jogita Sahu and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Chandra Prabha Das and 2 Ors.