AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Bhattacharjee, J
Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Khyriem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. D. Thabah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Misc.Case No.2(T) of 2026 arising out of Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990, whereby the petitioner was restrained from carrying out the ongoing construction of a footpath in Cleve Colony.
The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not a party to the suit and the learned Trial Court thereby, acted in gross illegality in passing the impugned order against the petitioner. By referring to the provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, he contends that the law does not contemplate passing of any injunction order against a person who is not a party to the suit. He further contends that the action of the Trial Court in passing the injunction defied all the rational norms of justice as the petitioner was not given any chance to be heard before the order was passed. He, therefore, submits that it is a fit case for this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of process of law.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that passing of the impugned order was necessitated due to the interference of the petitioner with the suit property. He submits that the petitioner in the guise of construction of a footpath had intruded into the private land of the respondent for which an FIR was also lodged with the police. He, therefore, submits that the passing of the order was aimed at preventing illegal action of the petitioner and hence, the impugned order cannot be faulted.
Upon hearing the parties, it appears that there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was not a party to Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990. There is also nothing on record to indicate that any application was filed before the Trial Court seeking impleadment of the petitioner as a party in Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990 before the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 was passed. As the petitioner was never a part of the litigation, he could not have been lawfully injuncted by the trial court by passing the impugned interim order. The provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC nowhere authorizes a court to pass a direct order of injunction against a person who is not a party to the suit. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner was acting under any of the defendants in Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990. It is, therefore, clear that the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in passing the injunction order against the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Hence, it is a fit case requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction and accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed in Misc.Case No.2(T) of 2026 by the learned Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong is hereby set aside and quashed.
It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim and counter claim of the respective parties and the same shall remain open for consideration at an appropriate point of time when required by law. This order shall also not disentitle the respondent to seek redressal of his grievance against the petitioner in accordance with law.
With the above, this revision petition stands disposed of.