Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010133532024 2025:GAU-AS:1109 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/227/2024 NIBARAN CH NATH AND ANR S/O- NITAI CH. NATH, PRESIDENT OF JOY KRISHNAPUR MAHAPRABHU MANDIR/ AKHRA COMMITTEE, R/O- JOY KRISHNAPUR, P.O.- RONGPUR SOUTH, P.S.- LALA, DIST.- HAILAKANDI (ASSAM), PIN- 788163. 2: PARITOSH NATH S/O LT. GURA MONI NATH SECRETARY OF OF JOY KRISHNAPUR MAHAPRABHU MANDIR/ AKHRA COMMITTEE R/O- JOY KRISHNAPUR P.O.- RONGPUR SOUTH P.S.- LALA DIST.- HAILAKANDI (ASSAM) PIN- 788163 VERSUS SASHANKA NATH AND 10 ORS S/O- LT. SARBANANDA NATH, VILLAGE- JOY KRISHNAPUR, P.S.- LALA, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. 2:SMTI. PRITI RANI NATH Page No.# 2/6 W/O LT. NIKHIL NATH VILLAGE- JOY KRISHNAPUR P.S.- LALA DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 3:UTTAM KR. NATH S/O LT. NIKHIL NATH VILLAGE- JOY KRISHNAPUR P.S.- LALA DIST.- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 4:SMTI. PAKKI RANI NATH W/O LT. KULENDRA NATH LALA TOWN WARD NO. 2 5:SMTI. MONI NATH W/O DIBAKAR NATH VILL- DATTAPUR P.S.-RAMNATHPUR DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6:SMTI. PRAJAPATI DEBNATH W/O RANJIT DEBNATH LALA TOWN WARD NO. 10 S.S. SARANI P.S.-LALA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 7:DIPA NATH W/O MINTU NATH VILL- MUKTACHERRA P.S.-LALA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 8:THE COMMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DEPARTMENT Page No.# 3/6 GROUND FLOOR BLOCK-B ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 9:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 10:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) PUBLIC WORKS (ROAD) DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 ASSAM 11:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) DISTRICT TERRITORIAL DIVISION HAILAKANDI P.O.-R.P. ROAD P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, MS. T BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MR. J LASKAR (R-1 TO 7),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 04-02-2025 Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 7; Ms. M. Das, learned counsel for respondent nos. 8, 10 and 11; and Ms. A. Phukan, learned Page No.# 4/6 counsel for the respondent no. 9/proforma respondent. 2. The case in brief is that the respondent nos. 1 to 7/plaintiffs filed a Title suit No.35/2020, before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi for declaration of right, title & interest over the suit schedule land and recovery of khas possession from defendants and for temporary/permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiff impleaded 9 persons as respondents. Respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, were the authorized representatives of Joykrishnapur Mahaprabhu Akhra of village-Rongpur. In the meantime, the plaintiffs and the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 compromised and settled the dispute amicably between them. Accordingly, they jointly filed a compromise petition No. 836/2020, before the Civil Judge. It was stated that the dispute between them has been settled amicably, and the plaintiff does not have any claims against the defendant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The joint compromise petition was allowed. Accordingly, the suit against the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 was dismissed on compromise. 4. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed Misc.(J) case no. 92/2024 in Title Suit No. 35/2020, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for substituting their names in place of defendant nos. 1 and 2, claiming that they are the present office bearers of Joykrishnapur Mahaprabhu Akhra, which was earlier being represented by the then President and Secretary. 5. Upon hearing the parties and on consideration, the learned Civil Judge, by an order dated 14.05.2024, dismissed the application with the observation that the suit does not exist against Joykrishnapur Mahaprabhu Akhra, hence, the office bearers of the newly formed committee of the said Akhra, is not a necessary party in the said suit, and the suit cannot be revived against them Page No.# 5/6 when they have amicably settled the dispute. It is this order dated 14.05.2024, the petitioners have challenged in this petition claiming that they are the necessary parties and they be substituted in place of earlier defendant nos. 1 and 2, in the suit, as they are the new incumbents- President and Secretary of the Joykrishnapur Mahaprabhu Akhra. 6. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the documents available on record. 7. On consideration of the impugned order, and the documents on records, it appears that the plaintiffs and the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 have compromised their dispute in Title Suit No. 35/2020. As the plaintiff did not have any claim against the defendants No. 1, 3 and 4, they filed a compromise petition jointly before the Court. The case against the defendant No.2 was abated since deceased. Accordingly, the compromise petition was allowed, and the case was dismissed against the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 on compromise. 8. After dismissal of the case against the defendants No.1,2,3 and 4, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, for their impleadment as respondent No.1 and 2, claiming that they are the newly formed committee members of the Joykrishnapur Mahaprabhu Akhra. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi, by an order dated 14.05.2024, dismissed their application, and observed that the suit does not exist against Joykrishnapur Mahaprabhu Akhra, hence, the office bearers of the newly formed committee of the said Akhra is not a necessary party in the said suit, further, the suit cannot be revived against them, when they have amicably settled the dispute. The record reveals that the earlier Page No.# 6/6 Committee Members were duly constituted, and they were authorized to represent the Akhra in the suit as defendant No.1,2,3 and 4. The present petitioners were constituted only after the dismissal of the suit against the defendant No.1, 2, 3 and 4, as such, in the case decided against the authorized representatives on compromise, the petitioners being newly formed committee after dismissal cannot be impleaded to revive the case. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi in Misc(J) Case No. 92/2024. 10. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Petition stands disposed of. 11. The interim order passed on 15.07.2024 and extended from time to time also stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant