Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010204232022 2026:GAU-AS:11445 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/120/2022 SAIRA BEGUM AND ORS D/O LT. JALALUDDIN CHOUDHURY, R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II, P.O.- KANCHANPUR, P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2: SOFURA BEGUM CHOUDHURY D/O LT. JALALUDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM 3: TAHIR ALI CHOUDHURY S/O LT. JALALUDDIN CHOUDHURY R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4: NOOR UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O LT. SIKANDER ALI CHOUDHURY R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5: ROFIQUE UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O SAMSUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6: BOSHIR UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O LT. MOYOROM ALI CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/10 R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM 7: JOMIR UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O LT. MOYORAM ALI CHOUDHURY R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS JOINUL HUSSAIN LASKAR AND 14 ORS S/O BODOR UDDIN LASKAR, R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II, P.O.- KANCHANPUR, P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2:ANWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O BODOR UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 3:ALTA HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O BODOR UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 4:NOJRUL HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O BODOR UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5:AJMOL HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O BODOR UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6:MOSTUFA AHMED LASKAR S/O BODOR UDDIN LASKAR Page No.# 3/10 R/O VILL-KANCHANPUR PT-II P.O.-KANCHANPUR P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 7:MAYAJAN BIBI W/O- BODOR UDDIN LASKAR 9:NAJRUL ISLAM MAZUMDAR S/O LT. ABDUL MONNAN MAZUMDER 11:MISBAHUL ISLAM MAZUMDAR S/O LT. ABDUL MONNAN MAZUMDER 12:ABU ISHAK MAZUMDAR S/O LT. FOIZUL ISLAM MAZUMDAR 13:SUHELA BEGUM W/O LT. FOIZUL ISLAM MAZUMDAR 14:MOSTAK KAMAL MAZUMDAR S/O LT. ALBANUL ISLAM MAZUMDAR 15:SURAIYA BEGUM MAZUMDAR W/O LT. ALBANUL ISLAM MAZUMDAR 16:SIRAJUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY S/O LT. NIJAM UDDIN CHOUDHURY HAILAKANDI TOWN (NEAR KACHARI MOSJID P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI) 19:BODRUZ ZAMAN LASKAR S/O LT. ATAUR RAHMAN LASKAR VILL- KANCHANPUR PT-II P.S. AND DIST- HAILAKAND Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A SAHAD, MR. M H ALI,DIPALI DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N H BARBHUIYA (r-1 to 6), MS N J BEGUM (r-1 to 6) Page No.# 4/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 12-08-2026 The instant application under section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned judgment dated 15/7/2022 passed in Misc Appeal No.07/2022 by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi allowing the appeal in part with some modification and setting aside the part of the injunction order whereby police assistance was ordered to remove the obstacles put by the opposite parties/defendants to obstruct the schedule-III path of the suitland till disposal of the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Md A. Saha as well as the learned counsel Mr.N.H. Barbhuiyan for the respondent Nos.9, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 19. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner’s /plaintiff’s predecessor Late Sikandar Ali and Moyram Ali Choudhury purchased the schedule-1 land measuring 6 bigha 3 katha in R.S. patta No.10 Dag No.113, 115, 116 by a registered sale deed on 02/09/1954 from the vendor Nojib Ali Mazumdar and Bodoruddin. After purchase, the petitioner/plaintiffs got possession of the land and constructed their homestead, excavated tank and in part cultivated paddy and seedling in dag No.113 (full), 115 and 116(part). The petitioners have also constructed an approach path from schedule-1 land to schedule-II land on the strength of the right conferred by the sale deed for their ingress and egress. This approach road is being used by the petitioner and other co-villagers and this path is the only way for the petitioner to approach the main road from the schedule-2 land/their homestead. Page No.# 5/10 4. In the meantime, the R.S Dag No.113, 114, 115 and 116 were converted to new Dag Nos.147, 148 and 149 of 2nd R.S. Patta No.13 Mouza Kanchanpur Part- II. Nojib Ali Mazumdar (vendor) died leaving his wife and children. His son Abdul Aziz also died unmarried. Vendor Bodoruddin Laskar also died leaving his wife and sons who are the present defendant/opposite party Nos. 1 to 7. The total land in dag No.147, 148 and 149 (previous 113, 114, 115 & 116) of 2nd R.S. Patta no.13 was 10 bigha, 16 katha, 10 chattak out of which 6 bighas, 3 katha land i.e. Schedule Land-1 was the purchased land of the predecessor of the petitioners and the rest 4 bigha, 13 katha, 10 chattak land remained with the owner Nojib Ali Mazumdar which is located between the Schedule Land-1 and a “Gopat” (now public road) 5. After the death of Bodoruddin Laskar the opposite partes/defendants started to cut both sides of the portion of the said path described as schedule- III in the plaint in violation of the right conferred in the sale deed and illegally encroached the Scehdule-III path which is 6ft breath and 70ft length and bounded by-East:- Now the new homestead of the principal defendants. West:- old homestead of the principal defendants. North:-Gopat (now road) and South:- Rest part of Schedule-2 path) by making bamboo fencing on 03/10/2017 knowing that the petitioners have no alternative way to proceed to the main road and constructed their new homestead adjacent to east and encroached schedule-III path ignoring protest of the petitioners. 6. Apprehending encroachment and blockade, the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a Title Suit No.71/2017 against the present defendants/opposite parties on 7/11/2017 praying for a decree of declaration of their right, title and interest and possession over the schedule land-2. Page No.# 6/10 7. The opposite parties/defendants contested the case by filing written statement. During the pendency of the Title Suit the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a petition against the opposite parties/defendants on 30/1/2018 praying for grant of temporary and permanent injunction to restrain the opposite parties/defendants from obstructing/blocking the use of the schedule-III path. The said petition registered as Misc Inj. Case No.14/2018 was disposed of on 8/10/2018 by the learned Munsiff No.1 Hailakandi allowing the prayer of the plaintiffs/petitioners for grant of temporary injunction. 8. While passing the said Injunction order dated 8/10/2018, the learned Trial Court held that it was necessary to protect the right of the plaintiff/petitioner that there should be no change in the nature and feature of the suit land and injunction application was allowed and the opposite parties/defendants were restrained from proceeding to obstruct the suit path till the disposal of the main suit with the observation that the decision in this petition shall not go to the hilt of the main suit and shall not be an influencing factor in the main suit which shall be decided on merit on the basis of the materials in support of the contention of both sides. 9. Thereafter, the opposite parties/defendants preferred Misc.Appeal No.13/2018 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Hailakandi challenging the order dated 8/10/2018 passed in Misc Inj. Case No.14/2018 on certain grounds. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi dismissed the Misc Appeal No.13/2018 on 21/12/2018 by upholding and confirming the temporary injunction order dated 8/10/2018 passed in Misc Inj. Case No.14/2018. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that opposite parties/respondents/defendants did not remove the obstruction and there was Page No.# 7/10 continuing disobedience/violation of the order dated 8/10/2018 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1 Hailakandi in Misc Inj. Case No.14/2018. The petitioners/plaintiffs therefore filed another petition under Order 39 Rule 2(A) read with section 151 of the CPC against the defendants/opposite parties alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 8/10/2018 and prayed for a direction to the O.C Hailakandi Police Station to render police assistance for execution of the order. 11. The said petition was registered as Misc (V) Case No.16/2019. The opposite parties filed written objection denying the alleged willful disobedience of the order. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, the learned Munsiff vide order dated 5/7/2022 in exercise of its power under section 151 of the CPC directed the O.C Hailakandi police station to proceed to the schedule-III land and remove all the obstructions created over the schedule III land by which the petitioners were denied access to the path as claimed by them. The learned Trial Court also held in the order dated 5/7/2022 that although the order of the Court dated 8/10/2018 did not specifically direct the respondents to remove the obstruction created earlier, the grant of temporary injunction preventing the respondents from changing the nature and feature of the schedule land-III and from creating any obstruction over the schedule III path must in all necessary implication means to remove all the obstructions already in place on the schedule III land before passing of the temporary injunction order. The Court also held in the order dated 5/7/2022 that preventing the respondents/opposite parties from creating future obstructions would mean nothing unless the obstruction already created by the respondents are directed to be removed and thereby allowing the petitioners to access the path claimed by them. 12. Against the said order dated 5/7/2022 passed by the learned Munsiff, the Page No.# 8/10 opposite parties preferred Misc Appeal No.07/2022 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 15/7/2022. In the impugned order dated 15/7/2022, the learned Civil Judge Hailakandi after hearing the parties observed that the learned Munsiff in the order dated 8/10/2018 had specifically directed the defendants not to proceed with the obstruction i.e. they should not obstruct the suit path after the order dated 8/10/2018, but there is no mention of the acts done earlier. 13. The learned Civil Judge in the impugned order agreed with the submissions of the counsel for the respondents/defendants and held that no relief can be granted to a party without the same being prayed for and it is an admitted fact that there was no prayer for removal of obstruction either in the original injunction petition or in the plaint. The Court also held that when removal of obstruction is not even pleaded, it was wrong on the part of the learned Trial Court to hold that the restriction from obstruction includes removal of obstructions made earlier. Having come to such conclusion, the learned Civil Judge in the impugned order dated 15/7/2022 modified the order dated 5/7/2022 passed in Misc (V) Case 16/2019 and held that the part of the order directing the police to proceed to the schedule-III suitland and removal of all obstructions over the suit land shall stand set aside. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents have categorically stated that in their plaint as well as in the petition for temporary injunction the petitioners have never prayed for removal of all obstructions. He submits that in the Misc Inj.Case 14/2018, the prayer of the petitioners herein was to grant temporary and permanent injunction against the defendants from proceeding with obstruction in the schedule –III land path till further order. As such, the learned Page No.# 9/10 Trial Court in Misc Inj.Case 14/2018 had allowed the temporary injunction application and stated that the defendants/opposite parties are restrained from proceeding to obstruct the suit path till the disposal of the impugned suit. There is nothing in the temporary injunction order dated 8/10/2018 showing that the defendants were directed to remove the obstructions which were there before the order dated 8/10/2018 was passed. 15. It is the submission of the respondents/defendants that in the impugned order dated 15/7/2022, the learned Civil Judge has rightly observed that the power under section 151 CPC can be exercised by Court to implement injunction orders but the police protection may be granted only where application is filed by the person obtaining ad interim injunction alleging that there is a threat of breach, disobedience or violation of the order of injunction, subject to proof and that when a petition is filed seeking police protection, such order cannot be passed in a routine manner and a high degree of proof is necessary. 16. This Court had also perused the order dated 08/10/2018 passed in Misc Inj.Case 14/2018 in detail and observed that the original injunction order dated 8/10/2018 had only observed ‘that there should be no change in the nature and feature of the suit land’ and injunction application was allowed and the opposite parties/defendants were restrained from ‘proceeding to obstruct the suit path till the disposal of the main suit’. Nowhere it is mentioned in the injunction order that the defendants/opposite parties are to remove obstructions which were already there earlier. 17. A Revisional Court under Section 115 CPC is confined to jurisdictional issues alone. It cannot act as a second court of appeal, meaning it cannot re-evaluate evidence or overturn a decision just because it disagrees with the subordinate Page No.# 10/10 court's factual findings or legal conclusions. 18. In exercising power under section 151 CPC the civil court cannot automatically or mechanically order police protection upon receipt of an application. The court must thoroughly examine the case details, documents and the nature of the injunction order to ensure that there is indeed an imminent and very urgent need for police assistance. Police intervention is a last resort. Police assistance cannot be ordered in ordinary civil disputes. Trial courts cannot routinely use direct, permanent police deployment as an alternative measure, ignoring other specific remedies. Courts may issue protection orders only in special cases. 19. This Court is of the view that the Civil Judge has not committed any illegality or perversity by the order dated 15/7/2022 passed in Misc Appeal No.07/2022 and accordingly, it is upheld. 20. Registry shall send back the TCR expeditiously. JUDGE Comparing Assistant