Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11090 (GAU)

Lenzing Pertin v. Babang Ratan

CRP/4/2026 · 2026-07-26

Pranjal Das

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040001792026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/4/2026 Lenzing Pertin Son of Late Bakin Pertin, residing at Romdum Mebo, PO and PS Mebo, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Babang Ratan Son of Late Amin Ratan, Village Motum, PO and PS Mebo, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Advocate for the Petitioner : Petitioner in Person, Advocate for the Respondent : Dicky Panging, Sr. Adv, Reniyam Takam,Dadi Bote Pada,Omor Panggam,Mitin Boko,Chatung Tajo,Tokge Darin,Doge Lona,Marge Doji,Daina Tamuk BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 27-07-2026 Heard Mr. Lenzing Pertin, petitioner-in-person and Mr. Dicky Panging, learned Senior Counsel assisted by P. Harming, learned counsel for the Page No.# 2/5 respondent. 2. The instant civil revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside and quashing of the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned District Judge in IA No. 32 of 2025 arising out of Misc. Appeal No. 06/2025. 3. The aforesaid proceedings, in turn, arose out of T.S. No. 16/2022, which was preferred by the petitioner as the plaintiff, claiming right, title and interest over the suit land, which he claims to have acquired by way of a Gift Deed. In the said proceeding, the respondent herein, who is the defendant in the suit, is alleged to be a trespasser and to have no right over the suit land. 4. In the Title Suit, an application under Order XXXIX of the CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction. 5. The injunction application filed by the plaintiff was registered as Misc. Case No. 98/2023 arising out of Title Suit No. 16/2022. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo over the suit land. 6. Subsequently, being aggrieved by the order directing maintenance of status quo passed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.06.2025 on the injunction application, the defendant/respondent preferred a Misc. Appeal before the Court of the learned District Judge, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 06/2025. In the said appeal, an application was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, which was registered as IA No. 32/2025. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2026 by the learned Appellate Court, Page No.# 3/5 permitting the defendant to carry on certain activities. 7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 08.01.2026 modifying the order of injunction directing maintenance of status quo, the plaintiff preferred the instant civil revision petition seeking interference with the said order and restoration of the order directing maintenance of status quo, as passed by the learned Trial Court while disposing of the injunction application. 8. By placing a certified copy of the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No. 06/2025, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that, in the meantime, the Misc. Appeal challenging the order directing maintenance of status quo passed by the learned Trial Court has already been disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2026, whereby the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc. Case No. 98/2023 (arising out of Title Suit No. 16/2022) granting status quo was set aside. It is further submitted that, in view of the order dated 19.02.2026, the order dated 08.01.2026 passed in IA No. 32/2025, whereby the defendant was permitted to carry on certain activities during the pendency of the appeal, stands merged with the final order dated 19.02.2026. 9. Mr. Pertin, the petitioner-in-person, submits that his stay application should be heard and disposed of. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that since the appeal itself has been disposed of by setting aside the order directing maintenance of status quo passed by the learned Trial Court and as the learned Appellate Court has specifically observed that the order dated 08.01.2026 Page No.# 4/5 passed in IA No. 32/2025 stands merged with the final order dated 19.02.2026, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant revision petition and the same has become infructuous. 11. I have perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions advanced by the parties. 12. The Title Suit, being T.S. No. 16/2022, is still pending between the parties. The learned Trial Court had granted temporary injunction at the behest of the plaintiff/petitioner by directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. The said order was challenged by the defendant by way of an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the learned Appellate Court modified the order - directing maintenance of status quo - by permitting the defendant to carry on certain activities. Thereafter, the appeal itself was finally disposed of by setting aside the status quo order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, as noticed hereinabove. 13. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the doctrine of merger would apply to the order dated 08.01.2026 passed in IA No. 32/2025, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. Besides, the learned Appellate Court has specifically recorded in its final order that the order dated 08.01.2026 stands merged with the order dated 19.02.2026. 14. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered view that - the instant revision petition challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 passed in IA No. 32/2025, which has merged with the final order dated 19.02.2026 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 06/2025 - has become infructuous. Page No.# 5/5 15. The petitioner-in-person/plaintiff is, however, at liberty to take recourse to law by challenging the order dated 19.02.2026 whereby the learned Appellate Court has set aside the temporary injunction (status quo) granted by the learned Trial Court. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the instant civil revision petition stand disposed of as infructuous. JUDGE Comparing Assistant CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Jumbi Bam Date: 2026.07.27 18:06:36 +05'30'