Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040002702023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : FAO/1/2023 Bejing Tayeng S/o Shri Kelni Tayeng, Ayeng Village, PO Mebo, PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Phone No. 8132895810 VERSUS Makrep Perme and 2 Ors. S/o Shri Tikeng Perme, Ayeng Village, PO Mebo, PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Phone No. 8132895810 2:Oyon Perme Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Shri Redong Perme Ayeng Village PO Mebo PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh 3:Dabe Perme Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Shri Bayang Perme Ayeng Village PO Mebo PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Gamken Bam,Y Mugli,D Loyi,Terji Kamchi,Khoda Apa,Riya Sarkar,Kirmani Lollen Advocate for the Respondent : Dicky Panging, T Tamuk,D Tamuk,M Doji,Doge Lona BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 29.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Pasighat in PSG Misc. Civil Appeal No. 48/22 in Civil Appeal (Kebang) Case No.53/2022. 3. The order impugned order in this appeal is quoted herein below:- “12.12.2022 L'd Counsel for the applicant Respondent Mr. T. Tamuk is present. L'd Counsel for the respondents Mr B. Tayeng and Mr K. Lego are present. Heard both the sides. As per the previous order, Mr. Tikeng Perme, 2nd HGB of the Ayeng village has appeared in person and stated that the Simak stream is actually not belongs to the applicants, in fact, they are in possession of it. It is also a community stream. He has also stated that although, the boundary of the Koyo area is written as 'upto Simak stream' but actually it does not extend to Simak stream. The area Page No.# 3/4 under possession of applicants is known as Simak Robung area which does not comes under Koyo area which is disputed between the appellants and the respondent. He categorically stated that the Ayeng Village has no disputes with all the applicants and their possession of land at Simak Robung area. During the further course of hearing, the L'd Counsel for the applicants has agreed to construct the house structure without claiming any compensation from the appellant in case of the disputed land is decreed in favour of the appellants including the land in possession of the applicants and construction thereof. Since, the applicants has ready to go on further construction of the house at Simak Robung area which are disputed by the appellants to falls under the disputed land in between him and the Ayeng village and the same is not disputed by the Ayeng village as the land does not falls under disputed land of Koyo area, I am inclined to vacate the previous interim order dated 30.03.2022, passed by DC, Pasighat, after hearing the parties in connection to PSG Civil Appeal 53/22, which was registered as T/Appeal No. 09/19 in the Office of DC, Pasighat. Accordingly, the Misc application No.48/22 is stands disposed of.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in connection with Civil Appeal (Kebang) Case No.53/2022 on an application filed by the respondents without they being impleaded as party in the Title Suit No. 09/2021 as per the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court of learned District Judge, Pasighat had erred in allowing the application filed by stranger for vacating the interim order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the DC, Pasighat without getting themselves impleaded as party to the said title suit. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has conceded to the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that apparently, it appears Page No.# 4/4 that the impugned order is liable to be vacated in as much as it has been passed on an application filed by the stranger to the original case. He also submits that the present respondents may be given liberty to approach the Court below for filing an appropriate application for impleading the respondents as the parties before the Trial Court in the original title suit and the resultant title appeal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 7. As the learned counsel for the respondents has conceded to the prayer made by the petitioner in the instant civil revision petition filed by the applicant and as it appears that the impugned order has been passed on an application filed not by the party to the suit but by strangers, hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the interim order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the DC, Pasighat is hereby restored. 8. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court below for impleading them as party in the said proceeding, if so advised. 9. With the above observation, this first appeal against order is hereby disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant