Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010020662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/11/2025 AMARPALI CHOUDHURY AND ANR W/O- LATE SANTANU CHOUDHURY, R/O- SAHARIA BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR EMPLOYMENT OFFICE (OLD), A.K. AZAD ROAD, REHABARI, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781008, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 2: SUPRIYO CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE SANTANU CHOUDHURY R/O- SAHARIA BUILDING 2ND FLOOR NEAR EMPLOYMENT OFFICE (OLD) A.K. AZAD ROAD REHABARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781008 DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSA VERSUS HEMRAJ NAHATA R/O- HOUSE NO. 32, NRIPEN BORA PATH, FATASHIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI, PIN-781025, DIST. KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Sancheti, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : None appears. Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 12.02.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sancheti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. 2. The Petitioners herein who are the Defendants in Title Suit No.425/2021 have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.16/2023. 3. The ground on which the instant petition has been filed is that the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 01.03.2023 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.366/2021 arising out of Title Suit No.425/2021 had passed the final order in the suit and as such, the said order being confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.16/2023, the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 is required to be interfered with. 4. This Court has duly heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and has perused the materials on record. 5. From the materials on record, it transpires that the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the Munsiff No.4, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had passed an order of injunction dated 01.03.2023 in Misc. (J) Case No.366/2021 and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the suit tenanted premises mentioned in the Schedule A and B in the plaint till the disposal of the connected Title Suit No.425/2021. It was further observed that the Defendants/Opposite Parties are restrained Page No.# 3/4 from evicting and/or dispossessing the Petitioners from the suit property without following the due process. 6. It is a well settled principle of law that when an order is challenged by way of a statutory appeal, by virtue of doctrine of merger, the order challenged merges with the appellate order. 7. This Court further takes note of paragraph No.23 of the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned First Appellate Court which is reproduced herein under: “23. Under such circumstances, an injunction to preserve the suit premises by way maintaining status quo with regard to the possession over the suit premises would meet the ends of justice, for, in the event of the suit premises being alienated by the defendants, the very purpose of filing the suit will become infructuous and may also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, both parties are directed to maintain status quo over the suit premises till final disposal of the suit. The order of status quo passed by the Trial Court does not need any interference.” 8. From a perusal of the above order, it is seen that the learned First Appellate Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. It was also mentioned that the order of the status quo passed by the learned Trial Court does not need any interference. The said order under no circumstances, can be said to be a order by which the suit have been finally disposed of or to be a final order disposing of the suit. 9. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. Under such circumstances, in terms with the observations made Page No.# 4/4 hereinabove, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant