Dr. Dipankar Malakar Vs Dinesh Das and 2 Ors.

DINESH DAS AND 2 ORS. SON OF UNKNOWN, C/O ASSAM STATE SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SONARI, DISTRICT - CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN - 785690

¶10

2:GOVIND MAHAPURUSHIYA SON OF UNKNOWN C/O ASSAM ANUSUCHIT JAATI PARISHAD CHARAIDEO ZILLA SAMITI MAIN OFFICE AT SAPEKHATI CHARAIDEO P.O. - SAPEKHATI DISTRICT - CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN -798182. 3:DIGANTA DAS SON OF UNKNOWN C/O ASSAM ANUSUCHIT JAATI PARISHAD CHARAIDEO ZILLA SAMITI MAIN OFFICE AT SAPEKHATI CHARAIDEO P.O. - SAPEKHATI DISTRICT - CHARAIDEO ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 2/7

¶12

PIN- 798182

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MS. F L MIZO,MR JITENDRA DAS,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date :17.07.2026

¶18

Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 22.05.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Charaideo in Petition No.164/2026 arising out of Title Suit No.03/2026.

¶20

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 22.05.2026, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Charaideo had rejected the petition No.164/2026, arising out of Title Suit No.03/2026, filed by the petitioner for restraining the defendants from causing any interference with the judicial process and abuse of the judicial process by issuing any notice or drawing up of any proceeding against the petitioner/plaintiff with respect of his caste certificate during the pendency of the instant suit.

¶21

4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who has been serving as Assistant Professor in Sapekhati College, had instituted a title suit, being T.S. No. 03 of 2026, for declaration, damages, compensation for malicious and atrocious publication and campaigning,

¶22

Page No.# 3/7

¶23

permanent and mandatory injunction and for other relief(s). While the said suit is pending for trial, the respondent herein had issued one notice to the petitioner, dated 27.04.2026, for surrendering his caste certificate.

¶24

4.1. Mr. Dutta, also submits that then being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed an application before the learned Trial Court for restraining the respondents/defendants from causing any interference with the judicial process and abuse of the judicial process by issuing any notice or drawing up of any proceeding against the petitioner/plaintiff with respect of his caste certificate during the pendency of the instant suit. But, vide impugned order, dated 22.05.2026; the learned Trial Court had dismissed the same without considering the fact that pending disposal of the Title Suit such notice could not have been issued. Mr. Dutta also submits that the impugned order was passed in flagrant disregard of law and thereby occasioning failure of justice and also that the same has been passed in exercise of powers by the Ld. Court below in a manner not permitted by law and thereby causing failure of justice and occasioning grave injustice to the petitioner. Mr. Dutta has also referred to the doctrine of Lis-Pendence in this regard to support his contention.

¶25

4.2. Under the given circumstances, Mr. Dutta has contended to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the learned Court below to consider the same afresh.

¶26

5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 22.05.2026.

¶27

6. It appears that the title suit, being T.S. No. 03 of 2026, was instituted by

¶28

Page No.# 4/7

¶29

the petitioner herein, for alleged defamation and for declaration, damages, compensation for malicious and atrocious publication and campaigning, permanent and mandatory injunction and for other relief(s). The said suit is pending for trial before the learned court below. And the respondent herein, pending trial of the suit had issued one notice to the petitioner, dated 27.04.2026, for surrendering his caste certificate.

¶30

6.1. Further, it appears that the learned Trial Court, while dismissing the petition, observed as under:-

¶31

“ It appears from the record that the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking compensation on account of alleged defamation. The notice dated 27.04.2026, which forms the basis of the present petition, is a communication admittedly addressed by the defendants to the plaintiff personally. At this stage, whether the contents of the said notice are defamatory in nature or not is a matter to be adjudicated upon during trial on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. Further, this Court is of the considered view that no blanket order can be passed restraining a party from issuing notices or initiating legal proceedings, as restraint may amount to curtailing the legal remedies otherwise available to a litigant under law. Mere apprehension of prejudice, without establishing any imminent abuse of the process of Court or irreparable injury, is not sufficient for invoking inherent powers under Section 151 CPC.

¶32

It is also well settled that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are to be exercised sparingly and only where no specific remedy is available under the Code and where ends of justice so require. In the

¶33

Page No.# 5/7

¶34

present case, the plaintiff has failed to show any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of such inherent jurisdiction.

¶35

Moreover, the impugned notice, being a private communication between the parties, cannot prima facie be treated as publication constituting actionable defamation at this interlocutory stage.”

¶36

6.2. However, having gone through the record this Court finds that the petitioner herein, in the said Title Suit also prayed for following relief(s).

¶37

(iv) Grant a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from making any defamatory statements, written communication and campaign, as regards the false claims against the Plaintiff by the defendant on news media.

¶38

(v) Grant a decree of mandatory injunction against Defendants to remove all such written communication to various authorities, articles, photographs and videos from all News Medias, published against the character of the Plaintiff. (vi) Grant Ad interim injunctions and ad interim mandatory Injunctions in respect of prayer nos. iv. & v.

¶39

6.3. It also appears that along with the said suit, Misc (J) Case No.04/2026 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the CPC was also filed by the petitioner praying for grant of temporary injunction. It is, however, not clear from the record as to the outcome of the said Misc(J) Case.

¶40

7. However, from the contentions made in the petition and also from the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it becomes apparent that

¶41

Page No.# 6/7

¶42

the suit is pending and the court is in seisin of the subject matter. And it is well settled that once a civil suit is instituted and the court is in seisin of the matter, parties must generally channel disputes regarding the suit's subject matter (including documents or certificates central to the claims) through the court proceedings. In that view of the matter, the actions by a defendant in issuing a formal notice demanding surrender of a caste certificate, that forms part of the dispute, may amounts to interfering with the court's authority. It seems to be abuse of process.

¶43

7.1. The respondents herein, could have raised the issue in their written statement, counter-claim, or by filing an application in the title suit, seeking directions for production/surrender if relevant. They, however, cannot bypass this by direct notice, as it undermines the court's exclusive role in adjudicating the issues.

¶44

7.2. But, this aspect of the matter eschewed consideration of the learned Trial Court. Thus, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, this Court has reservation in connection with applicability of doctrine of lis pendens in this matter, which is covered by Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

¶45

8. In the result, this Court finds merit in this petition and is inclined to dispose of the same at this motion stage itself by remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court to consider the same, however, the Misc (J) Case No.04/2026, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was also filed by the petitioner praying for the grant of temporary injunction, if in the meantime the same has not been disposed of. And to facilitate in carrying out such an exercise the impugned order dated 22.05.2026, stands set aside and quashed.

¶46

Page No.# 7/7

¶47

9. The parties have to bear their own costs.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Dipankar Malakar v. Dinesh Das and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Dipankar Malakar v. Dinesh Das 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

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

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

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

Ananta Boiragi Vs Pramila Kalita

Ananta Boiragi Vs Pramila Kalita

M/S Gyan Sagar Foundation Vs Subhash Sarma and 2 Ors.