Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030000102025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/1/2025 The Director, Blue Mountain Construction Engineering Service (P) Ltd. and Anr. B-69, 4th Floor, Aijal Club, Khatla, Aizawl, Mizoram 2: The Manager/In charge/Worker VERSUS Sh Vanlalvuana and 7 Ors. S/o Lalnundanga (L), R/o Luangmual, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:The State of Mizoram 3:The Secretary 4:The Director 5:The Settlement Officer 6:The Chairman 7:The Commissioner 8:The Chairma Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R2-R5 Page No.# 2/8 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/4/2025 The Director Blue Mountain Construction Engineering Services (P) Ltd. and Anr. B-69 4th Floor Aijal Club Khatla Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Vanlalvuana and 7 Ors. S/o Lalnundanga(L) R/o Luangmual Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 10.02.2025 Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appears for the State Government and Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 (AMC). Page No.# 3/8 2. The appellants have put to challenge the status quo order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Aizawl District in CMA No. 1097 of 2024 arising out of Civil Suit No. 153 of 2024. The appellants’ counsel submits that the respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 153 of 2024 and as he has impleaded the State Government as a necessary party in the suit, the respondent No. 1 had made an application under Section 80(2) of CPC to grant him leave of the Court, to file the suit without serving any notice as required under Section 80(1) CPC. In pursuant to the application made by the respondent No. 1 under Section 80(2) CPC, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge passed an Order dated 11.12.2024 in CMA No. 1096 of 2024 arising out of Civil Suit No. 1096 of 2024, allowing the respondent No. 1 to institute the suit against the State Government, without serving a notice under Section 80(1) CPC. 3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and Section 94 (c)(e) read with Section 151 CPC, to issue a temporary injunction against the appellants and the other defendants in the suit, from undertaking any construction of RCC OR non-RCC structures within the land of respondent No.1, covered by VC Pass dated 19.08.1971. 4. The Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge thereafter passed the Page No.# 4/8 impugned Order dated 11.12.2024 in CMA No. 1097 of 2024, directing the parties to maintain status quo over the land covered by the respondent No. 1’s VC pass. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned Order dated 11.12.2024 passed in CMA No. 1097 of 2024, directing the parties to maintain status quo, is hit by the second part of Section 80(2) CPC, inasmuch as, the Government or Public Officer has not been given any opportunity of hearing, prior to the impugned status quo order being passed. He submits that as the said status quo order has not been made in terms of Section 80(2) CPC, the same should be set aside. In support of the submission, he relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of The Union of India and Others Vrs. Sri. Karuna Kanta Deka reported in (1983) 1 GLR 116. 6. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand submits that the impugned status quo order has been passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge in terms of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, even though an application had been made by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. He submits that an order passed under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC is not an appealable order in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. He also submits that as the relief prayed for by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is not against the State Page No.# 5/8 Government or any Public Officer, the question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the State Government or the Public Officer, before grant of an interim order in terms of Section 80(2) CPC, does not arise. 7. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel further submits that the learned Court of the Senior Civil Judge has fixed 13.02.2025, for filing of written objection in connection with the appellants’ application for grant of an interim order under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC and the appellants application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC has not been finally decided as on date, inasmuch as, the status quo order has been made applicable only till further orders are issued and not till disposal of the main Civil Suit. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. On perusing the prayer portion of the respondent No.1/plaintiff’s claim in Civil Suit No. 153 of 2024, this Court finds that numerous reliefs have been prayed for by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff against the State respondents also. The further facts of the case is that the impugned Order dated 11.12.2024 passed in CMA No. 1097 of 2024 has been made on the basis of an application filed by the respondent No. 1 under order 39 Rule 1 CPC and which application has not been disposed of till date. The same is clear from the fact that the appellants have been given time to file their written objection/show cause reply Page No.# 6/8 to the application made by the respondent No. 1. 10. Section 80(2) CPC provides that the Court shall not grant any interim relief or otherwise, except after giving opportunity of hearing to the Government or Public Officer against whom relief is prayed for in the suit. In the present case, the impugned order clearly shows that the impugned Order dated 11.12.2024 has been issued without the State Government or Public Officer being represented or heard. 11. The order allowing the Section 80(2) CPC application shows that the only prayer made by the respondent No. 1, is for granting him leave to file the suit without issuing notice under Section 80(1) CPC and there was no prayer for grant of an interim order made under Section 80(2). The prayer for the interim order has been made under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. 12. The learned Civil Court had passed the impugned ad-interim order on the basis of the application Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, without considering the fact that the second part of Section 80(2) CPC, had to be read in conjunction with the respondent No. 1’s application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, in a suit filed without complying with Section 80(1) CPC. On the other hand, the State respondents do not appear to be aggrieved with the impugned order. Page No.# 7/8 13. In any event, this Court is of the view that the impugned Order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Court, without taking into consideration the second part of Section 80(2) CPC, was not proper and is liable to be set aside. However, keeping in view the fact that the next date for submission of show cause reply or for filing written objection against application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC has been made on 13.02.2025, this Court is of the view that the appellants should file a show cause reply or a written objection in CMA No. 1097 of 2024. The learned Court of the Senior Civil Judge can thereafter, take a decision on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. 14. On considering the fact that an ad interim order can only operate till the hearing of the application and as this Court has fixed 13.02.2025 as the next date for listing of CMA No. 1097 of 2024, this Court is of the view that the ad interim Order dated 11.12.2024 passed in CMA No. 1097 of 2024 shall be made applicable only till 13.02.2025, as the impugned order had been made, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the State Government or the Public Officer concerned. 15. On 13.02.2025, the learned Civil Court shall take a decision as whether an interim order should be given to the respondent No. 1, on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC and the final disposal of the application will be Page No.# 8/8 made, as the learned Civil Court deems it fit and proper. 16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant