Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010187042024 2025:GAU-AS:7216 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2877/2024 GITIMA ROY AND 2 ORS W/O PALLAB MEDHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LUTUMA LOKHARA ROAD ,PO BINOVA NAGAR, PS FATASIL, GUWAHATI 781018, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2: MOUSUMI MITRA W/O BISWAJIT MITRA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LALGANESH TINIALI SANTI NAGAR HOUSE NO. 2 PO LALGANESH PS FATASIL AMBARI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 3: SUNITA SAHA W/O NAGENDRA CHANDRA SAHA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 42 4TH BYE LANE BHASKAR NAGAR KALAPAHAR PS FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI 781018 DIST KAMRUP M ASSA VERSUS SABITA NATH SARMA W/O LATE MONI KANTA NATH SARMA, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 506, 5TH FLOOR, B BLOCK MANAR ELEGANCE SOME SUNDAR PALLAYA HSR 2ND SECTOR, BANGALORE, 560102 Page No.# 2/3 For the Applicant(s) : Mr. S. Ali, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 03.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of a temporary injunction thereby restraining the respondent, her men, agents, representatives, attorneys etc. from selling or encumbering the schedule property and from creating any third party rights thereon till the disposal of the Regular Second Appeal. 3. Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has filed the objection to the said application and submitted that the respondent do not have any intention to alienate the suit property. He further submitted that taking into account that the suit was filed seeking specific performance have been dismissed, the respondent should not be restrained Page No.# 3/3 from enjoying the suit property. 4. Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as the Regular Second Appeal has already been admitted by formulating 3 (three) substantial questions of law, the property in dispute is required to be preserved. 5. Considering the above, this Court directs the parties to maintain status quo insofar as title is concerned. This Court further makes it clear that the maintenance of status quo as regards title shall not however interfere in the enjoyment of the suit property which is presently in possession of the respondent. 6. With the above, the instant application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant