Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010152312025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/262/2025 UMME SALMA AND ANR W/O ABDUL RAFIK, R/O VILL- AMOLAPAM, MOUZA-HALESWAR, P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM 2: ABDUL RAFIK S/O LATE ABDUL KASIM R/O VILL- AMOLAPAM MOUZA-HALESWAR P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR DIST- SONITPUR ASSA VERSUS KULENDRA DEKA S/O LATE DALIM CH. DEKA, R/O VILL- KUMARGAON, P.O. AND P.S.- TEZPUR, MOUZA- BHAIRABPAD, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MOZUMDER, MS D DEVI,MR. S BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. D.Mozumder, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.Biswas, Page No.# 2/4 learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners 1. Umme Salma and 2. Abdul Rafik have prayed for a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Tezpur to dispose of the Misc. (J) Case No. 25/2025 on the next date i.e. on 28.07.2025 considering the delay caused in disposal of the Misc. Case after the ad-interim temporary injunction order was passed against the petitioners/defendants. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that an ex-parte ad-interim temporary injunction order has been passed against the petitioners/ defendants on 13.02.2025 in Misc. (J) Case No. 25/2025 directing the petitioners i.e. the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 not to/make any construction over the suit land and opposite party No. 3 is debarred from according permission for any kind of construction of any filling station over the suit land till the next date. However, several dates were fixed by the trial court but the Misc. case was not disposed of finally. It is further submitted that the land was obtained by the petitioners spending huge amount of funds approximately Rs.1.24 crores for purchasing 2 Bighas of land and an agreement in respect of Schedule B land for an advance amount of Rs.20,000,00/- for a total amount of Rs.70,000,00/- was also executed. 4. It is further submitted that the land was transferred through registered sale deed and respondent/plaintiff however has not disputed the sale deed but has disputed the boundary of the land. It is further submitted that an objection was filed in Misc. (J) case No. 25/2025 by the present petitioners on 13.05.2025. The case was fixed for hearing on 15.05.2025, on which date, the petitioners had argued and the matter was fixed on 26.05.2025. On 26.05.2025, Page No.# 3/4 the counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff took adjournment and thereafter the Misc. case was fixed on 13.06.2025 on which date, the petitioners/ defendants again placed their remaining part of their arguments and so far as the respondent /plaintiff was concerned, in the 1st half he argued and in the 2nd half he did not turn up and the petitioners/ defendants were informed that the matter has been adjourned on personal grounds. On the same day, i.e. on 13.06.2025, the respondent/ plaintiff filed another petition under Order 39 Rule 7 of the CPC for local inspection. On that day, the case was fixed on 16.06.2025 for hearing on both the petitions under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Order 39 Rule 7 CPC and 03.07.2025 was the date fixed for passing order under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC. 5. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order is to be disposed of within 30 days of passing the order. On 03.07.2025, the parties were represented and as the Presiding officer was on leave, the case was adjourned till 28.07.2025 for order only. 6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners with circumspection. 7. It is apparent that the dispute is relating to the boundary of the plot of land mentioned in the Sale Deed and in the schedule of the plaint. The petitioner No.1 has also filed a counter claim. The petitioners have already spent crores of rupees in setting up the filling station (petrol pump). It appears that the petitioners are suffering immensely owing to the delay in disposal of the injunction petition. Page No.# 4/4 8. Considering all aspects, learned trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the matter on the next date fixed or to make every endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in terms of Order 39 Rule 3 A of the CPC. 9. In terms of the above observation, the civil revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant