Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030007792024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/11/2024 P.C.Lalhmingthanga S/o Lalchhunga (L), R/o Ramhlun Sports Complex, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS State of Mizoram and 4 Ors. R/b Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram 2:The Deputy Commissioner Champhai District Champhai 3:The District Magistrate Champhai District Champhai 4:The Mizoram Rural Bank Champhai Branch R/b its Branch Manager 5:Smt Cinngaihhluni D/o Thangngaihliana R/o Bethel Veng Champha Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1-R3 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG 23.01.2025 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that the instant FAO may be disposed of at the admission stage itself since his prayer is limited for issuance of a similar order passed by this Court in FAO No. 10/2024 dated 08.11.2024, wherein this Court had stayed the operation of the eviction order issued by the District Magistrate, Champhai District, Champhai till the disposal of the CMA No. 60/2024 filed in Civil Suit No. 13/2024. 2. The learned counsel submits that the instant appeal under Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act r/w Section 104 and Order 43 CPC, 1908 is against the Order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Champhai in CMA No. 70/2024 A/o Civil Suit No. 15/2024. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant had filed the Civil Suit No. 15/2024 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Champhai District as respondent No. 5 had fraudulently mortgaged his LSC No. 307704/01/341 of 2009 located at Bethel Veng, Champhai Division. The appellant had also filed CMA No. 70/2024 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 seeking for injunction restraining the respondents not to take possession of the land covered by the said LSC. 4. The learned Trial Court, while accepting the CMA No. 70/2024 had refused to grant ad-interim-injunction as prayed for by the learned counsel vide its Order dated 27.11.2024 and had fixed 18.12.2024 for issuance of the opposite parties/defendants and for submission of their written objection, if any. The learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court had not considered the matter on 18.12.2024 but had fixed another date i.e., 12.02.2025 for submission of their written objection while in the meantime, the appellant has grave apprehension that his landed property would be auctioned by the District Magistrate, who had passed an order for the auctioning of the property of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed that Page No.# 3/3 the operation of the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 25.11.2024 may be stayed till the disposal of CMA No. 70/2024. 5. On hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the limited prayer made by the learned counsel, which is for the issuance of a similar order passed in a similar case in case No. FAO No. 10/2024 dated 08.11.2024 (passed by this Court), this Court finds it fit that the instant FAO can be disposed of at the motion stage by interfering with the impugned Order dated 27.11.2024 in CMA No. 70/2024 A/o Civil Suit No. 15/2024, only to the extent of staying the operation of the eviction order (Hriattirna) issued by the District Magistrate, Champhai District, Champhai/respondent No. 3 till the next date fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Champhai in CMA No. 70/2024. The learned Senior Civil Judge may make an attempt to dispose of the CMA No. 70/2024 expeditiously considering the nature of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Accordingly, FAO No. 11/2024 stands disposed of as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant