Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010225752024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3322/2024 SHAHNAZ RASUL AND 3 ORS D/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL, RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD, LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001, ASSSAM 2: SRI EVAN ZIAUR RASUL S/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM 3: SMTI. NAFISA RASUL D/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM 4: SRI ZOHEB RASUL S/O LATE IFTEKHAR RASUL RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSA VERSUS KIRAN MAMTAZ RASUL AND 2 ORS W/O LATE IMTIAZ RASUL, RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD, LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001, ASSAM 2:MD. INTEKAB RASUL S/O LATE IMTIAZ RASUL Page No.# 2/5 RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM 3:MD. ISTEEAK RASUL W/O LATE IMTIAZ RASUL RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD LAKHTOKIA GUWAHATI 781001 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GHOSH, MR. M SARMA,MR P BHARDWAJ,MR. M K CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date :16.07.2026 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. 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. 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 Page No.# 3/5 said suit, the predecessor in interest of the Opp. Parties appeared and filed written statement title of the petitioners/plaintiffs was admitted. 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. 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. 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. 7. Therefore, the suit property may be protected by directing the defendants/opposite parties to maintain status quo in respect to the suit Page No.# 4/5 properties and also to restrain the Opp. Parties from collecting the rent from the tenant, else, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. The parties are, accordingly, directed to maintain status quo in Page No.# 5/5 respect of the suit property as on today, till disposal of the RSA. 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. 15. In terms of above this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant