Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Meghalaya · body

2022 DAILYLAW 323 (MEG)

DOKEN RABHA AND 2 ORS. v. TAPON RABHA

CRP/25/2022 · 2026-08-11

B Bhattacharjee

body2022

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 08 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG CRP No.25 of 2022 Date of Order: 11.08.2026 1. Shri. Doken Rabha son of (L) Lobendra Rabha Resident of Village & P.O. Pedaldoba, P.S. Tikrikila, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. 2. Shri. Devkanta Rabha son of (L) Hem Charan Rabha, Resident of Village & P.O. Pedaldoba, P.S. Tikrikila, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. 3. Shri. Josendro Rabha son of (L) Resident of Village & P.O. Pedaldoba, P.S. Tikrikila, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. …..Petitioners -VERSUS- Shri Tapon Rabha, son of (L) Fonendra Rabha, Resident of Village Nayapara, P.O. Pedaldoba, P.S. Tikrikila, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. …..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S.A. Sheikh, Adv with Mr. L.N. Arengh, Adv For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.G. Momin, Adv with Ms. L.D. Sangma, Adv 2026:MLHC:856 (ORAL) Heard Mr. S.A. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Mr. A.G. Momin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had to approach this Court against the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Judge, District Council, Tura in Misc Case No.37 of 2013, as the petitioner was not sure whether an appeal would be maintainable in law against the said order. He submits that since it now stands clarified that the Court of the Assistant Judge is a Subordinate District Council Court, the petitioner would like to withdraw this petition with liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. On prayer being made, this revision petitions stands dismissed on withdrawal with liberty as prayed for. However, as the petitioner approached this Court under a misconception, it is ordered that status quo with regard to the suit property in Misc Case No.37 of 2013 be maintained by the parties for 2 (two) weeks to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. It is made clear that the order of status quo has no reference to the merits of the case in hand. The trial court records be returned forthwith. Judge Meghalaya 11.08.2026 “Shrity,PS” 2026:MLHC:856 Digitally signed by SHRITY CH MOMIN Date: 2026.08.11 16:31:41 IST