Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040005312023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/19/2023 Kendak Basar S/o Late Chiken Basar, R/o Tare Village, Gori III, PO/PS Basar, District Leparada, Arunachal Pradesh. Mob. No. 8257878973 VERSUS Jumkar Basar and Anr. S/o Shri Gejum Basar, R/o Tare Village, Gori II, PO/PS Basar, District Leparada, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Jumbom Basar Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Shri Gejum Basar R/o Tare Village Gori II PO/PS Basar District Leparada Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Lissing Perme, Krishna Dubey,Wintet Sawin,A Perme,William Yirang,T Gamlin,Signal Yirang Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, Nyali Sora,M Tanga,R Karga,B Basar BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 19-09-2025 Heard Mr. S. Yirang, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for both the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The fact of the case is that the respondents herein have filed Title Suit No. 16/2022 before the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aalo for declaration of Right, Title and Interest over the said suit land in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein), measuring 540.6 Sq. Mtrs. of land, located at Lipe Rijo area, Basar. 3. The petitioner (respondent therein) file Misc. Application No. 42/2022 in the Title Suit No. 16/2022 under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) seeking dismissal of the said suit on the ground of res judicata. The said Misc. Application No. 42/2022 was rejected by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aalo on 17.03.2023. However, while rejecting the miscellaneous application under Section 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the title suit on the ground of res judicata, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division inter alia made the following observations; "The suit land is in possession of the plaintiff No. 1, which is recognised by the competent authority by issuing LPC vide No. WS/REV-16/39 (PT) of dated 10th April’ 2006 (Document No. 2). Thus, it can be prima-facie hold that the possession of the Page No.# 3/4 suit land is with the plaintiff No. 1 since 2006” 4. Being aggrieved by the said observations of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, the petitioner filed this application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prays for striking out the part of the order i.e. “the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff No. 1, which is recognised by the competent authority by issuing LPC vide No. WS/REV-16/39 (PT) of dated 10th April’ 2006 (Document No. 2). Thus, it can be prima-facie hold that the possession of the suit land is with the plaintiff No. 1 since 2006”. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in this civil revision petition is confined to the expunge of the above observations made by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aalo on the ground that the above observations though made in the interlocutory application pertain to the subject matter of the suit itself, and by making such findings in the interlocutory application, it will seriously prejudice the petitioner in the merits of the main suit as it touches upon the issue of possession, which is one of the question to be adjudicated in the title suit. 6. Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, conceded to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that the rejection of the Miscellaneous application made under Section 11 of the CPC for dismissal of the title suit on the ground of res judicata be uphold. 7. Having considered the rival submission and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds substance in the contention of the petitioner. It is a settled position of law that while deciding an interlocutory application, the Court should refrain from making any conclusive observations on issues which are directly in Page No.# 4/4 controversy in main suit, as such, an observation may cause prejudice either party at the stage of trial. 8. The impugned observation of the learned Trial Court, extracted hereinabove, indeed amounts to a finding on possession, which is the very subject matter of adjudication in the Title Suit No. 16/2022. The same was unnecessary for deciding the application under Section 11 of the CPC and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand. 9. Accordingly, while upholding the rejection of Misc.Appln. No. 42/2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the CPC, the impugned observation of the learned Trial Court that “the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff No. 1, which is recognised by the competent authority by issuing LPC vide No. WS/REV-16/39 (PT) of dated 10th April’ 2006 (Document No. 2). Thus, it can be prima-facie hold that the possession of the suit land is with the plaintiff No. 1 since 2006” is hereby expunged from the record. 10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the Title Suit No. 16/2022 uninfluenced by any such observation. 11. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant