Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010289902025 2026:GAU-AS:985 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/2/2026 RIAJUR RAHMAN AND 4 ORS. SON OF LATE NUR MOHAMMED, R/O VILL- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, WARD NO. 14, P.O.- KHELMATI, P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787031 2: NAZIBUR RAHMAN SON OF LATE NUR MOHAMMED R/O VILL- NORTH LAKHIMPUR WARD NO. 14 P.O.- KHELMATI P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787031 3: ABDUL SAMAD BARUAH SON OF LATE ABDUL WAHAB BARUAH R/O VILL- NORTH LAKHIMPUR WARD NO. 14 P.O.- KHELMATI P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787031 4: SAMIMA YASMIN BORAH W/O MUJIBUR RAHMAN R/O DREAM HILLS PATH AMGAON BONDAGAON P.O.- BONDA P.S.- PRAGJYOTISHPUR GUWAHATI-26 Page No.# 2/5 5: BABITA BEGUM CHOUDHURY D/O MD. TAIZUDDIN ALI R/O DREAM HILLS PATH AMGAON BONDAGAON P.O.- BONDA P.S.- PRAGJYOTISHPUR GUWAHATI-2 VERSUS SAMIM ALI SON OF MOHAMMED ALI, R/O KHARGHULI, AMGAON, P.O.- BONDA, P.S.- PRAGJYOTISHPUR, GUWAHATI-26 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA, MR. K ISLAM,MR M CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. T.H. Hazarika for the appellants Riajur Rahman, Nazibur Rahman, Abdul Samad Baruah, Samima Yasmin Borah and Babita Begum Choudhury. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that they are highly prejudiced by the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc (J) Case No. 1136/2025 arising out Title Suit No. 751/2025, granting ex-parte injunction without hearing the appellants. 3. It is submitted that the appellants are highly prejudiced as the order was Page No.# 3/5 passed without hearing them. They have prayed for an opportunity to place their submissions. It is further submitted that it was erroneously held by the learned Trial Court that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the respondent, who would suffer irreparable loss if ex-parte injunction is not passed. 4. The factual matrix of this case is that both the parties have entered into an agreement for transfer of 2 Kathas of land appertaining to Dag No. 1 of K.P. Patta No. 1 under Mouza Beltola, Dispur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (M), Assam, for a consideration of Rs.62,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs). It is admitted by the appellants that out of Rs.62,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs), the appellants who are the absolute owners of the aforementioned plot of land have accepted and received Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) from the respondent, who was the buyer of the aforementioned land. 5. It is averred that it has been falsely submitted before the learned Trial Court that the respondent is in possession of the disputed land. It is submitted that the agreement was not a registered document and there was no transfer of land by the seller to the buyer. It is submitted that transfer of land or of any immovable property above Rs.100/- has to be registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 6. It is further submitted that the appellants are highly prejudiced as they have been debarred from entering into their own land. The appellants have basically denied that the respondent is in possession of the land. It is further submitted that it has been falsely submitted by the respondent/plaintiff that the respondent had paid Rs.1,00,000/- through the Masjid Committee. Page No.# 4/5 7. The appellants have also submitted that they have never refused to accept Rs.29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs) from the respondent and it is alleged that the respondent was not willing to pay Rs.29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs). Moreover, on checking the balance of the respondent, it was found that the respondent had a balance of Rs.300/- (Rupees Three Hundred) in his account. 8. It is further submitted that as per Section 55 (1) (f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the seller is to give, on being so required, the buyer, or such person as he directs, such possession of the property as its nature admits. In this case, the possession of the property was never handed over to the buyer. 9. I have considered the submissions that the appellants are willing to file their written objection in Misc (J) Case No. 1136/2025 and to place their submissions. Notices are not issued to the respondent. 10. Thereby, considering the entire aspect of the matter, the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in connection with Misc (J) Case No. 1136/2025 arising out of Title Suit No. 751/2025, is set aside. The appellants are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court and file their written objection and place their submissions within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and after hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Court may pass any order which the Court deems fit and appropriate. 11. Accordingly, appeal is allowed without issuance of notice on the respondent. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant