Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010226462025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5862/2025 SRI MOHANLAL REE AND ANR S/O LT. NABA KUMAR REE, RESIDENT OF BORAKHAI TEA ESTATE, P.O. AND P.S. DWARBOND, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 788010 2: SRI RATANLAL TURIA S/O LT. DUPAN TURIA RESIDENT OF BORAKHAI TEA ESTATE P.O. AND P.S. - DWARBOND DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 788010. BOTH ARE DULY REPRESENTING THE BORAKHAI TEA BAGAN PANCHAYAT UNION CONSISTING OF 520 TEA GARDEN EMPLOYEE VERSUS THE OWNER, BARAKHAI TEA ESTATE AND ORS ADDRESS BARAKHAI TEA ESTATE , SILCHAR, ASSAM 788010, PRESENT ADDRESS FAIRLIE PLACE PODDAR HOUSE KOLKATA 1 2:THE MANAGER BARAKHAI TEA ESTATE DWARBOND DIST CACHAR ASSAM 788113 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA SILCHAR BRANCH DWARBOND CACHAR ASSAM 4:THE UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Page No.# 2/3 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 239 UNION BANK BHAWAN POINT MUMBAI 400021 5:THE UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH 14/1B EZRTA STREET KOLKATA 70000 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.10.2025 Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has filed this application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India purporting to challenge an order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Cachar. By the said order, it appears that though the petitioner had prayed for an ex- parte injunction, notice was issued to the opposite party and no ad interim order was passed. Under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an order passed under the aforesaid provision is an appealable order. In the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Ors Vs Tuticorin Education Society and Ors. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a caveat that whenever there is remedy under the Code, constitutional provision are not liable to be invoked. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein below:- “12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such Page No.# 3/3 alternative remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar. Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a 3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [(2003) 6 SCC 675] pointed out in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [(2015) 5 SCC 423] that “orders of civil court stand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than judicial/civil courts”. 13. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure and the forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self- imposed restriction, but as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.” In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present application is misconceived and not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. Liberty is however given to the petitioner to approach the proper Court under the appropriate provision of law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant