Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010132642025 2025:GAU-AS:11152 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2009/2025 ANAND DEALERS PVT LTD AND ANR A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GAURIPUR, P.O. AMINGAON, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI. RAVI CHOUDHURY, S/O. ISHWARI PD. CHOUDHURY. 2: RAVI CHOUDHURY S/O ISHWARI PD. CHOUDHURY DIRECTOR OF ANAND DEALERS PVT. LTD. RESIDENT OF SATI JAYMATI ROAD ATHGAON GUWAHATI 781001 KAMRUP M ASSA VERSUS SRI AJIT SAIKIA AND ORS S/O. LATE MAHIDHAR SAIKIA 2:RANJAN SAIKIA S/O. LATE MAHIDHAR SAIKIA 3:DILIP SAIKIA S/O. LATE MAHIDHAR SAIKIA ALL ARE R/O. RUDRESWAR AMINGAON P/O. AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI PIN-781031 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:SUBHADRA CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/4 W/O. LATE DR. JAGADISH CHOUDHURY 5:JUTHIKA CHOUDHURY S/O. LATE DILIP CHOUDHURY 6:DEEPAL CHOUDHURY S/O. GOLAP CHOUDHURY 7:BANASHREE CHOUDHURY W/O. NILIMAY CHOUDHURY 8:ANUPAM CHOUDHURY S/O. NILIMAY VHOUDHURY ALL ARE R/O. HAPPY VILL P/O. CHENIKUTHI GUWAHATI-781003 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. A K AZAD,MR. N HAQUE,MR. N G KUNDU,MR M HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR S N ADHYAPAK, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 21.08.2025 Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. S.N. Adhyapak, the learned counsel representing the opposite parties. 2. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for allowing the applicants to construct an RCC building over the suit land. 3. The case of the applicants lies in a short compass. The applicants claimed to have purchased the suit land on the basis of a registered sale deed. On the other Page No.# 3/4 hand, the opposite parties claimed that the suit land was gifted to them by the predecessor of the vendor relating to the aforesaid sale deed. Therefore, the applicants filed a suit against the opposite parties seeking a declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and to declare the aforesaid gift deed dated 25.02.1976 allegedly executed in favour of the father of the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 to be illegal. The applicants also prayed for a decree of confirmation of their possession over the suit land. 4. Along with the plaint, an injunction application was also filed by the applicants. In the said application, the trial court passed an ex parte order of injunction directing both sides to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. The trial court also directed the applicants to comply with sub-rule (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the CPC. The trial court found that all the opposite parties were not served with the copies of the petition and the documents and therefore, held that the applicants did not comply with the sub-rule (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the CPC. 5. Thereafter, on 27.09.2024, the applicants again filed an application for an ad interim temporary injunction. The trial court rejected the prayer for an ex parte injunction for failure of the applicants to comply with the provisions of sub-rule (a) and (b) of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the CPC on the earlier occasion and issued notice to the respondents. 6. It goes to show that an injunction petition is still pending before the trial court. 7. Be that as it may, in this case both sides have claimed that they are in possession of the suit land. So, the question who is actually in possession of the suit land is an issue of fact and has to be proved by the parties by adducing evidence. Therefore, at this stage, the prayer of the applicants allowing them to construct an RCC house over the suit land cannot be considered. 8. Therefore, both sides are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit land till the trial court arrives at a definite finding as to who is in actual possession of Page No.# 4/4 the suit land. With this direction the Interlocutory Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant