Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010261162025 2026:GAU-AS:6444 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/75/2025 SMTI DYOTIKANA MEDHI AND 2 ORS W/O LATE BIRO BHADRA MEDHI, R/O MEDHI NIWAS, SANTIPUR, P.S. BHARALUMUKH, IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN 781009 2: ANIRUDDHA MEDHI S/O LATE BIRO BHADRA MEDHI R/O MEDHI NIWAS SANTIPUR P.S. BHARALUMUKH IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 781009 3: DUSHMANTA MEDHI R/O MEDHI NIWAS SANTIPUR P.S. BHARALUMUKH IN THE DIST. KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN 78100 VERSUS MSTI SARITA DEVI JAIN W/O SRI SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN, R/O NEHA APARTMENT, BLOCK 2, ATHGAON, P.S. BHARALUMUKH, DIST. KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MR B DEORI Advocate for the Respondent : A GAUTAM, FOR CAVEATOR,MR. C TALUKDAR Page No.# 2/12 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/95/2026 SMT SARITA DEVI JAIN WIFE OF SRI SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN RESIDENT OF NEHA APARTMENT BLOCK - 2 ATHGAON P.S.BHARALUMUKH DISTRIC KAMRUP M GUWAHATI -781001. VERSUS SMT DYOTIKANA MEDHI WIFE OF LATE BIRO BHADRA MEDHI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESIDENT OF MEDHI NIWAS SANTIPUR P.S. BHARALUMUKH IN THE DISTRICT KAMRUPM GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN781009. 2:SRI ANIRUDDHA MEDHI SON OF LATE BIRO MEDHI RESIDENT OF MEDHI NIWAS SANTIPUR P.S. BHARALUMUKH IN THE DISTRICT KAMRUPM GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN781009. 3:SRI DUSHMANTA MEDHI SON OF LATE BIRO BHADRA MEDHI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARSRESIDENT OF MEDHI NIWAS SANTIPUR P.S. BHARALUMUK IN THE DISTRICT KAMRUPM GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN -781009. ------------ Advocate for : MR S SARMA Page No.# 3/12 Advocate for : MR. D DAS SR. ADV appearing for SMT DYOTIKANA MEDHI BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 11.05.2026. Heard Mr. S. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. Chhaya and Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. F. Faridi and Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties/appellants. 2. This is an application under Section 151, read with Order XLI Rule 35(3) and Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for urgent interim and ad interim directions for restitution of status quo under the Order dated 06.11.2025 in the connected appeal. 3. It is the case of the applicant/respondent that the Title Suit No.505/2023 was instituted by the respondent for declaration of her right, title and interest and recovery of possession wherein the present applicant/respondent had appeared and filed their written statement and contested the case accordingly. During the pendency of the said Title Suit No.505/2023, a Misc. Case was instituted being Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025, seeking temporary injunction including mandatory injunction by the present applicant alleging that after filing of the suit, the plaintiffs were trying to dispossess the defendant/present applicant from her rightful and peaceful possession of the property and during the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff/appellant illegally trespassed into the suit property in the first week of January, 2024 with the purpose to construct their residential houses. For the said occurrence, the present petitioner as a Page No.# 4/12 defendant had moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for temporary injunction and also praying for mandatory injunction. After hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, dated 06.11.2025, in Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025 in connection with Title Suit No.505/2023, whereby the prayer for the temporary injunction as well as the mandatory injunction was allowed considering the fact that the suit property is in danger of being wasted, damaged and susceptible to chance of hands. In the said order, apart from the temporary injunction, the respondents/appellant were also directed not to interfere in the possession of the present applicant/respondent and asked to remove all banners, fixtures and any movable kept by them in the suit premises and unauthorized entry from the suit property. After the said order passed in Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025, the connected FAO No.75/2025 has been filed by the respondent/appellant, wherein vide order dated 26.11.2025, this Court had passed the order directing both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property as on the date of order. But in spite of the order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by this Court vided order dated 26.11.2025, the respondent/appellant entered into the suit premises on the night of 09.01.2026 and utter contempt of the authorities of this Court, with assistance of criminal elements and collision of local police, breached and violated the order dated 26.11.2025 by entering into the suit property and assaulting the applicant’s/respondent’s representatives in the suit property, carrying out mob violence and forcibly thrown out the respondent/applicant and her belongings. Thus, the respondent/appellant have violated the order of status quo by entering into the suit property and installing their car and men inside the suit property, for which the present petition had to Page No.# 5/12 be instituted for issuing an urgent ad interim direction to the respondent/appellant to restore the status quo in respect of the suit property as on 26.11.2025, in compliance of the order of this Court passed in FAO No.75/2025 and the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had passed the order dated 06.11.2025, in Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025 in connection with Title Suit 505/2023. Further, it is prayed for issuance of an ad interim mandatory injunction and consequential directions to the respondent/ appellants and their men, agents, employees, associates, servants, friends and family members to exit the suit property and to remove all the banners, fixtures and any movable including their car from the suit property, where they have kept all these things with unauthorized entry in spite of directions from the learned Trial Court below as well as from this Court passed in connected FAO No.75/2025. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. S. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/respondent relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden reported in (1990) 2 SCC 117, wherein the Apex Court expressed the view that the relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non- contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tanusree Basu & others vs. Ishani Prasad Basu & others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 791, wherein in para 23 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that : “the Court indisputably will have jurisdiction to restore the parties back to the same position, if a party Page No.# 6/12 takes recourse to any contrivance to dispossess another, during pendency of the suit either in violation of the order of injunction or otherwise”. 5. The opposite parties/appellants also filed their affidavit-in-opposition denying all the allegations brought against them and it is stated that the present application has been filed manifestly speculative, vexatious and totally frivolous in nature and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. It is further stated that an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable only when there is a willful disobedience of an injunction granted or any other order passed under Rule 1 & 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure or breach of any terms on which such injunction was granted. It is further stated that an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 necessarily pre-supposes the existence of a valid injunction order and in absence of such an injunction order, no breach can legally be alleged. Since the status quo order dated 26.11.2025 was not passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the present application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not maintainable as per law. 6. It is further stated that the person who complaints of disobedience or breach, has to clearly make out beyond any doubt that there was an injunction or order directing the person against whom the application is made to do or to desist from doing from doing some specific things or acts and there was willful disobedience of breach of such order. It is further stated that an application under Order XLI, Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable only in execution of a decree for possession or injunction and not at the interlocutory stage, when no decree has been passed and the suit remains pending for Page No.# 7/12 disposal. 7. Mr. Das, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that subsequent to the passing of the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, in Misc. (J) Case No. 852/2025 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, the respondent issued a letter on 07.11.2025 which further establishes and acknowledges that the appellants were in possession of the suit premises. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Court below has committed manifest illegality, material irregularity and jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 06.11.2025, in as much as it has failed to properly appreciate the admitted and undisputed factual position that the appellants are in continuous, peaceful and settled possession of the suit premises for more than one year prior to passing of the impugned order. The learned Court below, while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, has failed to consider the cogent and unimpeachable materials placed on record demonstrating that the appellants have been maintaining the electricity connection in their own name and regularly paying the electricity bills in respect of the suit premises, thereby clearly evidencing their actual physical possession. Accordingly, the present application under Order XLI, Rule 35(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is legally misconceived and not maintainable in the eye of law. 8. Heard the learned counsels for both sides and perused the materials available in the case record. 9. The specific case of the present petitioner/respondent is that in spite of the order of maintenance of status quo over the suit property passed by the Page No.# 8/12 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati dated 06.11.2025, in Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025 in connection with Title Suit No.505/2023 and at the same time, the order of maintaining the status quo was passed by this Court in the connected FAO No.75/2025 on 26.11.2025, the present opposite parties/ appellants had illegally trespassed into the suit property in the first week of January, 2026 with the purpose of construction of their residential house for which the applicant/respondent had to move the present interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A read with Order XLI, Rule 35(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to restore the status quo in respect of the suit property as on 26.11.2025, in compliance of this Court’s order passed in connected FAO No.75/2025, as stated above. 10. While writing the judgment and order in FAO No.75/2025, the entire case record and the earlier order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in connection with Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025 was perused and had made a detail discussion in that regard. 11. It is found that initially the opposite parties/appellants had instituted the Title Suit No.505/2023 against the present applicant/respondent seeking inter alia the decree of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed No. 2504 dated 17.11.2022 and a decree of eviction along with other consequential reliefs. Thus, it was the admitted position that at the time of instituting the said Title Suit No.505/2023, the present opposite parties/appellants were not in possession of the suit property. However, it is a fact that at the time of instituting the said Title Suit, a probate case was pending (which is still pending), whereby the present opposite parties/appellants had sought for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of a Page No.# 9/12 Registered Will, which was claimed to have been executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants. 12. As discussed in the judgment and order passed in the connected FAO No.75/2025, many incident had happened during the pendency of the Probate Case as well as the Title Suit and subsequently it is claimed by the present opposite parties/appellants that they have entered into the suit premises and took over the possession, as the suit land was lying unattended for long, after the arrest of the son of defendant/ respondent. So, only in order to protect the suit land from third party interference, the plaintiffs/appellants came into possession and are continuing the same. Consequently, they have filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to insert the prayer for confirmation of possession instead of recovery of possession due to subsequent events. At the time of passing the order by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati dated 06.11.2025, it had taken into consideration all these aspects of this case, which has already been discussed in the order passed in the connected FAO No.75/2025 and considering this aspect that the opposite parties/appellants had entered into the possession without any proper information to the Court or without any legal basis, only with a claim to protect the suit land from third party. 13. Thus, considering the same to be an illegal affair, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati had passed the order of injunction and the prayer for mandatory injunction was also allowed, whereby the opposite parties/appellants were directed to keep their hands of the suit property and not to interfere in the possession of the applicant/respondent till Page No.# 10/12 disposal of the suit. Further, the learned Trial Court below also directed the agent or man of the appellants/opposite parties to remove all the banners, fixtures and any movable kept in the suit property and also unauthorized entry in the suit property. The said order of injunction was also challenged by the present opposite parties/ appellants and accordingly, the FAO No.75/2025 has been instituted. After the institution of the said FAO No.75/2025, another prayer was made by the applicant/respondent before this Court and vide order dated 26.11.2025, this Court had also directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. 14. Thus, it is seen that in view of the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and the order passed by this Court after institution of the connected FAO No.75/2025, the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the suit property as on 26.11.2025. It also reveals from the said order that some photographs etc. were produced before this Court at the time of passing the order of maintenance of status quo. But in spite of the said order passed by this Court in FAO No.75/2025, the present interlocutory application has been instituted with a more serious allegation of violation of order of status quo and it is further alleged that they have unauthorizedly entered into the suit premises in the month of January, 2026 and tried to make some illegal constructions over the suit property. To substantiate the plea, the applicant/respondent also produced some photographs of the suit property, trying to bring on the record that the appellants/opposite parties had entered into the suit premises in spite of the order of maintenance of status quo. But it is an admitted fact that those photographs were not supported with any certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (presently Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) but as the Hon’ble Apex Court has held Page No.# 11/12 in the case of State of Karnataka vs. T. Naseer, reported in 2024 (16) SCC 729 that it is a curable defect and at the time of hearing also, those certificates can also be annexed. 15. So from the overall discussions made in the FAO No.75/2025 and in the present Interlocutory Application, it is seen that there is an order of injunction along with mandatory injunction with a direction to remove all the banners, fixtures and any movable kept in the suit property and also unauthorized entry in the suit property, vide order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025 in connection with Title Suit No.505/2023. Immediately after the said order, the connected FAO No.75/2025 has been instituted but till the time of the FAO No.75/2025, filed by the present appellants/opposite parties, there was no petition for violation of injunction moved by the present petitioner. However, immediately their appearance before this Court in connection with the FAO No.75/2025, the applicant/respondent herein made a prayer before this Court for maintenance of status quo by placing some photographs and accordingly, the status quo order was passed by this Court on 26.11.2025, directing the parties to maintain the status quo as on date of passing the order i.e. as on 26.11.2025. 16. It is also the claim of the opposite parties/appellants that as the entire suit land was in their possession, the question of entering into the suit property after the order of injunction dated 26.11.2025 does not arise and parking of their vehicle etc. in the suit property may be there in the suit land, as the same is still under their possession. Page No.# 12/12 17. It is a disputed question as to whether the suit property is still under the possession of the opposite parties/appellants or the applicant/respondent. However, both the parties have claimed their possession over the suit property and it is the claim of the applicant/respondent that at the time of filing/ institution of the suit, they were in possession and subsequently they were dispossessed by the present opposite parties/appellants. But considering the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Misc. (J) Case No.852/2025 on 06.11.2025 as well as the order of this Court passed on 26.11.2025, this Court is of the opinion that till the disposal of the Title Suit No.505/2023, the status quo over the suit property is required to be maintained and in view of this, if there is any violation of the order passed by this Court on 26.11.2025, the concerned parties are hereby directed to remove all the movable as well as immovable, installed after the status quo order dated 26.11.2025 and directed to maintain the status quo as on 26.11.2025, over the suit property. 18. However, the learned Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the Title Suit No.505/2023, within the shortest possible period, as there are allegations and counter allegations in regards to the possession and dispossession of the suit property. 19. With the above observation, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant