Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010058642025 2025:GAU-AS:3424 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/101/2025 LAILA BEGUM W/O- KHAYAM UDDIN AHMED, R/O- VILL- GARIGAON, PO GARIGAON, PS JALUKBARI, DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM, PIN- 781012 VERSUS AKHTARA BEGUM W/O- MD AYEJ ALI, R/O- VILL- AGYATHURI PO AND PS- DADARA, DIST- KAMRUP ASSANM, PIN- 781031 2:MD. HATEM ALI (HAJI) S/O LATE SALEUDDIN AHMED R/O- VILL- GARIGAON (BHELARBARI) PO GARIGAON PS JALUKBARI DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 781012 3:MRS SAMZIDA BEGUM D/O LATE SAMIRUDDIN AHMED W/O MD. HATEM ALI R/O- VILL- GARIGAON (BHELARBARI) PO GARIGAON PS JALUKBARI DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN- 78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH, MS F INTAZ,K U AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 26.03.2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the CPC, is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Laila Begum, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 40/2024, arising out of Title Appeal No. 11/2024. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 20.02.2025, the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati had vacated the status quo order, dated 27.03.2024, by rejecting the prayer for extension of the status quo granted earlier. 4. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had instituted one title suit, being Title Suit No. 303/2020, along with Misc. (J) Case No. 329/2020, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati for declaration of a decree, under the law of pre- emption, under Mohammedan Law or any other relevant laws and the same was rejected, vide order dated 01.08.2022. Thereafter, challenging the aforesaid rejection order, the petitioner had filed one RFA No. 42/2022, along with I.A. (Civil) No. 3483/2022, before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 25.11.2022, was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo as on that date. Mr. Sheikh also submits that subsequently, due to amendment of pecuniary jurisdiction, the said case was transferred to the Court of learned Page No.# 3/4 District Judge, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati and thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati was pleased to extend the status quo order, however, vide impugned order dated 20.02.2025, the learned trial Court had rejected the prayer of the petitioner and consequently, the order passed by this Court on 25.11.2022, stood vacated. 4.1. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ground for rejection of the petition for extension of status quo is not sound convincing as the learned trial Court had rejected the petition on the ground of the same being infructuous since the petitioner had already filed another petition alleging that status quo has been violated and also by holding that no useful purpose will be served by granting extension of status quo order, and therefore, Mr. Sheikh submits that the learned trial Court may be directed to decide the petition filed by the petitioner on merit. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, in Misc. Case No. 40/2024, arising out of Title Appeal No. 11/2024 and the order dated 25.11.2022, passed by this Court in RFA No. 42/2022, along with I.A.(Civil) No. 3483/2022. 6. It appears that the learned trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for extension of the status quo till final disposal of the Title Appeal No. 11/2024, on the ground that the petition seemed to be infructuous since the petitioner had already filed one petition alleging that the status quo order has been violated, and that no useful purpose will be served by passing an order of extension of status quo order. Page No.# 4/4 7. The ground for dismissal of the prayer of the petitioner for extension of the status quo order seems to be not sound convincing. The learned trial Court ought to have considered the said petition on merit. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out at the time of argument. 8. Having considered above and also considering the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 20.02.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, being the same arbitrary and illegal. The learned trial Court is directed to consider the prayer for extension of status quo order on merit, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 9. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant