Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010050942026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/813/2026 DR SAILENDRA KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE NABIN CH. DAS, RESIDENT OF H.N. 3, BISHNU RABHA PATH, KACHARI BASTI, GANESHGURI, P.S.- DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781005, DISTRICT-KAMRUPM, ASSAM. VERSUS SRI SHANTILAL DUDHORIA SON OF LATE SAMPATMAL DUDHORIA, RESIDENT OF P.B. COMPLEX, A.T. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781001. DISTRICT-KAMRUPM, ASSAM 2:SRI BINOD DAS SON OF LATE JOGESH CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF H.N. 27 COL. SIVA RAM BORA LANE KHARGHULI P.S.- LATASHIL GUWAHATI-781004. DISTRICT-KAMRUPM ASSAM 3:SRI RADHEY SHYAM PAREEK SON OF SRI LUNKARANJI PAREEK RESIDENT OF S.J. ROAD ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001 DISTRICT-KAMRUPM ASSAM. 4:SRI MUKUT DAS Page No.# 2/3 SON OF LATE JOGESH CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF H.N. 27 COL. SIVA RAM BORA LANE KHARGHULI P.S.- LATASHIL GUWAHATI-781004. DISTRICT-KAMRUPM ASSAM. .PROFORMA OPPOSITE PARTIE Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DUTTA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P SARMA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 07.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant Dr. Sailendra Kumar Das, who is the respondent in the connected RFA 39/2024, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908, praying for grant of temporary injunction against the opposite party/appellants restraining them from raising any construction over the suit land or changing the nature of the suit land. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant had filed Title Suit 132/2017 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division No.2, whereby, he had prayed for declaration that the sale deed dated 02.05.2013 in favour of the respondent No.1 is void and also sought for recovery of possession of the suit land. The said suit was decreed on 09.05.2024 in favour of the present applicant. He further submits that however, the respondents preferred the connected RFA 39/2024 and in that connected I.A. (Civil) 1687/2024, this Court vide order dated 07.06.2024 granted stay of execution of the impugned judgment till the disposal of the connected RFA 39/2024. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during the pendency of the Page No.# 3/3 present appeal, the opposite party/appellant has started construction work over the suit land and has also damage a portion of the old residential house standing over the suit property. He submits that if during the pendency of the connected appeal, the nature and character of the suit land is changed by raising construction thereof, in the event of dismissal of the connected appeal, the present appellant would be highly prejudice as the suit has been decreed in his favour. 5. He further submits that the opposite party has already constructed a wall on the suit land. He is also apprehensive that the appellant may also create a third party interest for the suit property during the pendency of the connected appeal and as such, to maintain the status of the suit property, the opposite party/appellant is required to be injuncted. 6. On the other hand, Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant submits that the opposite parties have not raised any construction over the suit land except for raising a boundary wall to protect the suit land from illegal encroachment by anti social element. He submits that the opposite parties are agreeable to maintain status quo over the suit property as on date during the pendency of the connected appeal. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 8. Since the opposite party is agreeable to maintain status quo over the suit land during the pendency of the connected appeal, and same is also agreeable to the learned counsel for the applicant, this Interlocutory Application is disposed of without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties with a direction that the Opposite party No.1/appellant shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property during the pendency of the connected RFA 39/2024. 9. With the above observation, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant