Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010024552025 2025:GAU-AS:4776 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/13/2025 SMTI. TRISHNA HAZARIKA AND ANR W/O SRI NILEN HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF NAMBAGHMORA, P.O./P.S.- BISWANATH CHARIALI, DIST- BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN-784177 2: NILEN HAZARIKA S/O LATE CHANDRA HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF NAMBAGHMORA P.O./P.S.- BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST- BISWANATH ASSA VERSUS DEBOL KRISHNA NATH S/O LATE ARJUN NATH, VILL- BAMGAON, WARD NO 4, P.O. AND P.S.- BISWANATH CHARIALI, DIST-BISWANATH B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. S Sahu Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. A Ikbal Date of hearing & judgment : 22.04.2025 Page No.# 2/6 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. S Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. A Ikbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.1/2023 by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Biswanath at Biswanath Chariali (hereinafter to be referred to as the learned First Appellate Court) whereby there was a direction upon the parties to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the original suit so that both the parties may abstain from making any construction for possession over the suit land. 3. Mr. S Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 had a registered deed of sale in her favour in respect to an area ad measuring 16 lechas, which is specifically described in Schedule C to the plaint and further the petitioner No.1 enjoys rights under Section 53 A over the land described in Schedule B to the plaint. He submitted that till the registered deed of sale as well as the registered agreement for sale on the basis of which the petitioners are in possession over the Schedule A land are set aside in accordance with law, the learned First Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioners to go ahead with the construction, inasmuch as, stalling a construction which is almost nearing completion and without there being any bond or undertaking taken from the plaintiff that the plaintiff/respondent herein would recompense the petitioners in the eventuality the suit is dismissed, the Page No.# 3/6 question of grant of an injunction did not arise. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners herein are agreeable to give an undertaking that in the circumstance, the plaintiff/respondent herein gets a decree from the Court they would demolish the construction or hand over the constructed premises to the plaintiff without any further decree to be passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel further submitted that an affidavit has been filed on 08.04.2025 before this Court by the petitioners jointly by giving an undertaking. 4. I have heard Mr. A Ikbal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent/plaintiff, who submits that the registered deeds on the basis of which the defendants/petitioners herein have claimed right over the Schedule A land are fraudulent and as such, no right whatsoever had accrued upon the petitioners over the land in question. He further submitted that in the circumstance any construction is carried out over the land, the plaintiff would have to seek a further decree for demolition of the said construction which would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. 5. This Court had given an anxious consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the plaint, the injunction application as well as the written objection and also the written statement filed by the parties before the learned Trial Court. 6. This Court has also perused the impugned order by which there is an order Page No.# 4/6 of status-quo granted as regards the construction. This Court has further taken note of that the petitioners herein had made construction over the Schedule A land and also that the said construction is half-done. Additionally, there are building materials which are lying and would get damaged, if in the circumstance the status-quo as regards construction is not interfered with. In addition to that, this Court has also perused the affidavit so filed by the petitioners dated 08.04.2025 and in the said affidavit the petitioners had given an undertaking at paragraph 3 which is reproduced hereinbelow: “3. That in terms of order dated 27.09.2024 passed in FAO being FAO No.36/2024, the petitioner begs to give their undertaking as follows: “I undertake that I shall on my behalf and on behalf petitioner/defendant No.2 demolish any construction made during the pendency of the suit and hand over the possession to the respondent/plaintiff, in the circumstances, the respondent/plaintiff succeeds in the proceeding initiated by him. I also undertake that I and the petitioner No.2 shall not create any third party right over the suit land during the pendency of the suit.” 7. From the above undertaking, it would be seen that both the petitioners have undertaken to demolish any construction made over the disputed suit land during the pendency of the suit and handover the possession to the respondent/plaintiff in the circumstance the respondent/plaintiff succeeds in the proceedings initiated by them. In addition to that, the petitioners have also undertaken that they would not create any third party right over the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The said undertaking so given before this Court Page No.# 5/6 by the petitioners would be construed to be an undertaking given before this Court which would have the force of an order being passed by this Court and any violation to the said undertaking at a later stage would amount to giving a false undertaking before this Court which would include action for contempt. This Court having taken note of the said undertaking is of the opinion that with the said undertaking, the balance of convenience shifted in not granting the injunction in so far as the status-quo as regards the construction is concerned. 8. Taking into account the above, this Court, therefore, modifies the order dated 16.11.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.1/2023 passed by the learned First Appellate Court i.e. the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Biswanath at Biswanath Chariali to the extent that there shall be no status-quo as regards the construction over the Schedule-A land. The said construction so made shall be subject to the outcome of the suit. Further to that, in the circumstance, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants/ petitioners herein as per their undertaking shall hand over the possession of the said constructed premises along with the Schedule-A land to the plaintiff without the requirement of any additional decree from the learned Trial Court. 9. This Court further directs that both the parties shall maintain status-quo over the suit premises as regards the title and possession till the disposal of the suit being Title Suit No.06/2023. 10. With the above, the instant proceedings stands disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant