Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040005602025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : FAO/3/2025 Dani Tatung Son of Shri Dani Nani, resident of Vilalge Hija, PO and PS Ziro, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by its Secretary, Department of Tourism, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The Director of Tourism Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Lower Subansiri District Ziro Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The District Tourism Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Ziro lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Hage Chatung Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Hage Bakhang resident of Hari village Page No.# 2/5 PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Takhe Tabyo Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Takhe Talin resident of Hong village PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Tapi Omo, Pankaj Borah,Bedanta Kaushik Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 07.05.2025 Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Saroh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Ms. T. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. The present application is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against an order dated 03.04.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, whereby, the fresh injunction application filed by the petitioner was dismissed with a liberty to the plaintiff to file a fresh injunction application after amendment of the plaint. 3. The brief litigation in history is that, the petitioner filed a civil suit, which was registered as Title Suit No.17/2023, seeking declaration and cancellation of a gift deed dated 15.06.2016, recovery of possession and mesne profit and Page No.# 3/5 grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or any persons claiming under them from alienating, transferring and leasing out the scheduled property as well as changing the nature and character of the suit land. 4. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as I.A. No.39/2023. The learned Trial Court below by an order dated 07.11.2023, after elaborately discussing the materials therein, directed all the defendants to maintain the status quo in respect of the property in question i.e., the Convention Centre at Ziro till returnable date. 5. Subsequently, the defendants preferred an application, which was registered as Misc. Case No.25/2023, whereby the defendants prayed for allowing them to utilize the aforesaid Convention Centre for the purpose of Ziro festival of music. The plaintiff did not object to such prayer and accordingly, the aforesaid prayer was allowed to use the Convention Centre during Ziro festival of music, 2024 w.e.f. 26.09.2024 to 29.09.2024. However, it was made clear by the Trial Court that the defendants shall not transfer or alienate the property until further order. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of plaint as the defendants took a stand that the aforesaid Convention Centre has been leased out to the defendant No.6 therein. Accordingly, I.A. No.34/2024 was registered, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court by its order 03.04.2025. It is recorded herein that along with the amendment petition, the plaintiff has also filed a fresh application under Order Page No.# 4/5 XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Misc. Case No.43/2024 with the background fact that since lease deed has been executed, such lease should not be given effect to. 7. Though the learned Trial Court by its order dated 03.04.2025 allowed the amendment petitioner, however, dismissed the injunction petition on the ground that until and unless amendment is carried out, no such application can be entertained. However, liberty was granted to the applicant to file a fresh application. Being aggrieved, the present application is filed with an apprehension that in view of rejection dismissal of such prayer, the lease date may be given effect to and property may be handed over to the leasee. 8. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the earlier order, such apprehension is having no base inasmuch as there is already a specific order, as recorded hereinabove that the status quo in respect of the property shall be maintained, inasmuch as the status quo shall definitely mean that the property cannot be handed over subsequent to the passing of the first order of injunction to any third party. Therefore, with the aforesaid observation, this application stands closed with a liberty to the petitioner to file any fresh application, if so advised. 9. It is further provided that the petitioner may file such application within a period of 10(ten) days before the learned Trial Court below under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the given circumstance of the case and the same be considered in accordance with law. 10. Till such application is considered, the status quo in respect of the Page No.# 5/5 property be maintained. However, it is made clear that this order shall not continue in the event no application is filed within the stipulated period of 10(ten) days. JUDGE Comparing Assistant