Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010097592026 2026:GAU-AS:6994 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/183/2026 RAJIB AHMED S/O BURHAN AHMED, (ASSIGNED VIDE ORDER DTD. 08.01.2026), R/O WARD NO.7, D.K ROAD, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM- 787001. VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND 4 ORS. A BODY CORPORATE HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 7, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI AND HAVING AMONGST OTHERS ONE ZONAL SASTRA CENTRE, AT HEM BARUAH ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK NORTH LAKHIMPUR BRANCH N.T.ROAD NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM- 787001 3:SMT. HIFZA HAZARIKA D/O LATE HABIBUDDIN @ HABIBATDDIN HAZARIKA R/O WARD NO.7 D.K.ROAD NORTH LAKHIMPUR LAKHIMPUR ASSAM- 787001. 4:SANTANU NATH PROPRIETOR OF M/S SANTANU NATH BONDED WAREHOUSE S/O BHOLARAM NATH Page No.# 2/5 R/O K.B.ROAD ANGERKHOWA NORTH LAKHIMPUR LAKHIMPUR-787031 ASSAM. 5:SOUMITRA SARKAR S/O NOT KNOWN R/O WARD NO.6 NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE NORTH LAKHIMPUR LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K RAI, MS M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PNB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 20.05.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Parvez, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In view of the order that is proposed to be passed, notices on respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 5 are dispensed with as they are not found to be contesting petition No. 471 of 2025 in which the impugned order dated 27.04.2026 was passed or the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 4 of 2024 3. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the substituted plaintiff in T.S. No. 3 of 2024 pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, has assailed the order dated 27.04.2026 passed in T.S. No. 3 of 2024, by which petition No. 471 of 2025 was rejected. The petitioner has also Page No.# 3/5 assailed the order dated 27.04.2026 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 4 of 2024, by which the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 was dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petition No. 471 of 2025 is an application filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit praying for the rejection of the plaint and the proceedings of Misc. (J) Case No. 4 of 2024 was an application for injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff had died, which is reflected in the order dated 19.09.2025, and in the meanwhile, there was an assignment of the property and accordingly, the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, by its order dated 08.01.2026, allowed the prayer for assignment under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC in favor of Rajiv Ahmed. By the petition No. 724/2026, prayer for adjournment was made on the ground of the ill health of the wife of the learned conducting counsel. In support of the said petition, medical documents were also enclosed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s wife was diagnosed with acute cholecystitis and adenomyomatosis, as reflected in the ultrasound report dated 25.04.2026, and that she underwent surgery for acute cholecystitis on 01.05.2026 at a private hospital in Patna. However, by order dated 27.04.2026, the prayer for adjournment was rejected and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was heard on petition No. 471 of 2025. By another order passed on 27.04.2026 in Misc. (J) Case No. 4 of 2026, as there was no substitution in the suit, the said Misc. (J) Case No. 4 of 2024 was dismissed. Page No.# 4/5 6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently objected to the prayer made in this application. 7. However, considering the fact that the wife of the counsel for the petitioner was ill and had undergone surgery on 01.05.2026 i.e. four days after 27.04.2026, the Court is of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner had justifiable reasons for making a prayer for adjournment. Accordingly, the said order suffers from non-consideration of the materials available on record before the order dated 27.04.2026 was passed on the petition. 8. Insofar as the order dated 27.04.2026 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 4 of 2024 is concerned, although an order passed on an injunction application is appealable, the petitioner, in the present case, has been able to demonstrate that by order dated 08.01.2026, the assignment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC was allowed in favour of Rajiv Ahmed. The same amounts to devolution/assignment of the property in question and, therefore, no substitution under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC was required. Accordingly, the said order appears to be erroneous and to have been passed in ignorance of the effect of the order dated 08.01.2026. Hence, this Court finds no reason to relegate the petitioner to the appellate remedy, as the order dated 27.04.2026 is found to be perverse and contrary to the order dated 08.01.2026 allowing the assignment. 9. Therefore, the said order dated 27.04.2026 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 4 of 2024 is also found to be without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same is interfered with. It may be mentioned that in the certified copy of the order dated 27.04.2026, the Misc. (J) Case is wrongly referred to as 04 of 2026 Page No.# 5/5 instead of 04 of 2024. 10. It is clarified that the interference with the order dated 27.04.2026 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 4 of 2024 is confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, this order shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case for entertaining an application under Article 227 challenging orders passed in an injunction application. 11. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are represented by their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, on 06.06.2026, and the petitioner by producing a certified copy of this order, await further orders from the said learned Court. 12. In view of discussions above, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant