Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010126502026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./104/2026 ABDUL HALIM AHMED S/O- LT. ABUL KASHEM, R/O-VILL- KALGACHIA MOUZA- RUPSHI, P.O- KALGACHIA, P. S- KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319 VERSUS NAYEB ALI AND 11 ORS. S/O-LATE KURPAN ALI @ KORAN ALI, R/O- VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI, P.O- GUNIALGURI, P.S - KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319 2:KHANDAKAR MUSARAF HUSSAIN S/O- KH. KERAMAT ALI 3:ABDUS SALAM S/O- LATE. CHANDULLAH 4:TAZ UDDIN ALI AHMED S/O- ALIM UDDIN BHUYAN 5:JAMELA KHATUN W/O- AYAN 6:AYMONA W/O- IMAN 7:EUNUS ALI S/O- SABED 8:ABDUR RASHID S/O- LATE. MAJAM ALI Page No.# 2/4 9:SAMSUL HOGUE AHMED S/O- FAZAR ALI 10:MOSTAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O RAMJAN ALI 11:RAHUL AMIN S/O- MANIR AHMED 12:KHAIRUL ALOM S/O- MANIR AHMED ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O. GUNIALGURI P.S- KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALIM SK, MR. A W MONDAL,MR K ISLAM,MR. M U MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This review petition is directed against the order dated 01.06.2026, passed by this Court in CRP No. 68/2026. 3. It may be stated that in the proceedings of CRP No. 68/2026, challenge was made in respect of the order dated 25.07.2025, passed by the learned Civil Page No.# 3/4 Judge (Senior Division) Barpeta in Misc (J) Case No. 171/2025, arising out of TS No. 05/2025. 4. Ordinarily against an order of injunction, an appeal would lie. Accordingly, after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reasons assigned, the revision was dismissed by order dated 01.06.2026. 5. In this review petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner intends to file an appeal against the order dated 07.02.2026. Therefore, the liberty as prayed for is, granted. 6. It is clarified that this Court had not entered into the merits of the order dated 07.02.2026, passed in Misc (J) Case No. 171/2025, and the revision was dismissed as ordinarily an appeal would lie against the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the prayer made in the said CRP No. 68/2026, that the order which was under challenge was order dated 07.02.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barpeta in Misc (J) Case No. 171/2025, arising out of TS No.05.2025. Thus, it appears that in the order dated 01.06.2026, the order impugned in CRP Page No.# 4/4 No. 68/2026, was inadvertently mentioned as 25.07.2025. For the said regard, this order shall be read together with the order dated 01.06.2026, passed in CRP No. 68/2026. 8. Accordingly, it is clarified that the order dated 01.06.2026, passed by this Court in CRP No. 68/2026, shall not be a Bar for the petitioner to file an appeal, if so advised, against the order dated 07.02.2026. In the event, an appeal is filed, the same shall be heard and disposed of without being influenced by the said order dated 01.06.2026. 9. It is further clarified that the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 01.06.2026, was passed in CRP No. 68/2026 at the motion stage, without issuance of notice on the respondents. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the liberty granted by virtue of this order would not prejudice the respondents. 10. This review petition stands disposed of without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE Comparing Assistant