Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16113 (GAU)

RAFIAT ALI v. MRS SHIRIN ASHRAF CHOUDHURY and ANR

I.A.(Civil)/2665/2024 · 2025-05-13

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010155742024 2025:GAU-AS:5972 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2665/2024 RAFIAT ALI S/O LATE MD. DUBAR ALI, R/O VILL. BARSAJAI, NEAR KHANKAH, P.S. BASISTHA, GUWAHATI, DIST KAMRUP VERSUS MRS SHIRIN ASHRAF CHOUDHURY and ANR W/O ALI AHMED CHOUDHURY, R/O TARUN AGAR, BYE LANE NO. 1, DIST KAMRUP, GUWAHATI-5 2:ABDUL KALAM AHMED S/O LATE MD. NAMMAT ALI R/O VILL BARSAJAI NEAR KHANKAH P.S. BASISTHA GUWAHATI DIST KAMRU Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ISLAM, MR B KALITA,MS F RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR P S DEKA, MD.H BHUYAN(R-2),MR.I CHOUDHURY(R-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 14-05-2025 Heard learned counsel Ms. S. Barman for the applicant; learned counsel Page No.# 2/2 Mr. I. Choudhury for the opposite party No. 1 and learned counsel Md. H. Bhuyan for the opposite party No. 2. 2. The applicant has filed this application under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for stay of the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division No. 2, Kamrup (M) in Title Suit No. 933/2006. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection. 4. It is submitted that the applicant may suffer irreparable loss if the aforementioned judgment and decree is not stayed by this Court as the judgment has been erroneously passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the applicant has a good ground and his appeal is likely to succeed. 5. Considering the submissions at the bar, the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division No. 2, Kamrup (M) in connection with Title Suit No. 933/2006 is stayed until further orders. 6. In terms of the above observation, this interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant