Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069342023 2026:GAU-AS:833 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/90/2023 PRASHMONI SINHA AND 4 ORS S/O LATE DR. PURNA NARAYAN SINHA, R/O EX-POLICE LINE, WARD NO. 12, TEZPUR TOWN, P.O.-TEZPUR, MOUZA-MAHABHAIRAB, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 2: SMTI RANJEETA SINHA DUTTA W/O SRI THANESWAR DUTTA R/O EX-POLICE LINE WARD NO. 12 TEZPUR TOWN P.O.-TEZPUR MOUZA-MAHABHAIRAB DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 3: THANESWAR DUTTA S/O LATE SUBHA RAM DUTTA R/O EX-POLICE LINE WARD NO. 12 TEZPUR TOWN P.O.-TEZPUR MOUZA-MAHABHAIRAB DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784001 4: SOMESWAR BORAH S/O LATE HALIRAM BORAH R/O VILL-BASANTIPUR P.O.-TEZPUR MOUZA-BHAIRABPAD DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN-784001 5: RAJIB DAS S/O LATE TANKESWAR SUT R/O VILL-DA-GAON PUKHURIA MOUZA-BHAIRABPAD DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 VERSUS SMTI. DULUMONI SINHA AND ANR W/O LATE PANKAJ NARAYAN SINHA, R/O EX-POLICE LINE, WARD NO. 12, TEZPUR TOWN, P.O.-TEZPUR, MOUZA-MAHABHAIRAB, DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 2:SMT. BHADRA SILA SINHA @ SILA SINHA W/O LATE PRANAB SINHA R/O EX-POLICE LINE WARD NO. 12 TEZPUR TOWN P.O.-TEZPUR MOUZA-MAHABHAIRAB DIST-SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P SARMAH, MR. M SHARMA,MR. S UPADHAY,MR B SINHA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S BORUAH (r-1), MR. S BORUAH (R-2),MR. K SARMA (r-1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 27-01-2026 [1] Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. [2] This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed Page No.# 3/4 by the petitioners impugning the Ex-parte Ad-interim Injunction order granted by the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Sonitpur on 15.12.2022 in Misc.(J) Case No. 305/2022 arising out of Title Suit No. 284/2022. [3] At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 is an order of Ex-parte Ad-interim Injunction granted under Rule 1 Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and as such, it is amenable to appellate jurisdiction of the appropriate appellate Court under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. He submits that as an appropriate statutory remedy is available under the aforesaid provision, the invoking of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not called for and the instant Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. [4] On the other hand, opposing the plea, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is an Ex-parte order and has not finally disposed of the Misc. Case, i.e., the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2. He submits that the orders mentioned in Rule 1(r) Order XLIII of the CPC is pertaining to a final order only and since the impugned order is in the nature of an interlocutory order, same is not covered under Order XLIII(1)(r) of the CPC. He therefore, submits that the plea of non-maintainability of the instant Civil Revision Petition does not have any force in it. [5] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and have gone through the materials on records. [6] It is no longer Res integra that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Page No.# 4/4 Constitution of India has to be sparingly exercised by this Court only in cases where the Court whose order has been impugned in the said proceeding has exceeded in its jurisdiction and has committed patent illegality and which has caused miscarriage of justice. Where an alternative statutory remedy is available for a party, the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised. [7] Bare perusal of the impugned order would show that the said order has been passed by the Trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and any such order is amenable to appellate jurisdiction of the appropriate appellate Court under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. Further a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that Rule 1(r) Order XLIII does not discriminate between a final order or an interlocutory order. What is required is that the said order has to be an order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 or 2 or 2(a) or 4 or 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As the impugned order is apparently, an order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is barred by the said provision. The appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the appropriate appellate Court under order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. [8] For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition (IO) is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant