Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020004042026 2026:GAU-NL:320 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : CRP(I/O)/1/2026 SHRI T. NZANTHUNG S/O PVUCHISAO KIKON, R/O HOUSE NO. 131, WARD NO. 6, LANE NO. 3, CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND. VERSUS SMTI. LEZANO KIKON @ LIZANO KIKON W/O LATE M. TSENKHOMO KIKON, PRESENT ADDRESS - WARD NO. 6, LANE NO. 3, CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND. PERMANENT ADDRESS - NIROYO VILLAGE WOKHA, NAGALAND. Advocate for the Petitioner : A. ZHIMOMI, ATOKILI CHOPHY,ATILIVI YEPTHOMI,LELIMTHONG P YIMCHUNGER,KUPUTOLI SEMA,MEGOVOU PESEYIE,VITO K SHOHE,G KAMEI,LHOUSINO,ESTHER Advocate for the Respondent : , -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. A. Zhimomi, Adv Advocate for the respondent: Mr. Philip Lorin, Adv. Page No.# 2/8 Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Philip Lorin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dimapur (for short the learned Trial Court) passed an order dated 22.08.2024 in I.A.(C)/88/2024 arising out of Title Suit No. 02/2024 whereby the petitioner herein, his men, agents, servants were restrained from entering, disturbing, interfering, disposing of the suit land covered by the Registration Nos. 6605,1409,1717 during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an Appeal before the learned District Judge, Dimapur (hereinafter referred to as the learned First Appellate Court) which was registered and numbered as Civil Appeal No. 02/2024. The learned First Appellate Court by order dated 30.01.2026, dismissed the said Appeal and it is under such circumstances the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. Before entering into the dispute, this Court finds it relevant to take Page No.# 3/8 note of that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is supervisory in nature. It is circumscribed by the settled principles of law and can be exercised only when the order so passed by the Courts and Tribunal within the jurisdiction of this Court are such which shocks the judicial conscience of this Court. 4. The respondent herein as a plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 02/2024, before the learned Trial Court seeking various declarations and consequential reliefs. It is the case of the respondent herein, that she was married to one M. Tsenkhomo Kikon on 08.01.2021. Unfortunately, her husband expired on 28.08.2023. The respondent had further stated in the plaint that during the period when the respondent was married to her husband, late M. Tsenkhomo Kikon, 3 (three) properties, which have been specifically mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint were purchased. The allegations made in the plaint were that the petitioner herein, who is the defendant in the suit, claiming that he is the adopted son, has not only entered into the possession of the said premises, but is also taking steps to transfer the said properties, though the defendant/petitioner does not have any right to do so. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the Scheduled lands in favour of the plaintiff; a decree restraining the defendant from interfering with the occupation and possession of the suit land; a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants, etc from entering, disturbing and interfering the peaceful occupation and possession of the building by the plaintiff, etc. Page No.# 4/8 5. It is further relevant to take note of that though in the plaint, the plaintiff have sought for a permanent injunction that the defendant, his men, agents, servants etc should not disturb and interfere with the peaceful occupation and possession of the building by the plaintiff, but at paragraph 9 and 10 of the plaint, it is categorically stated that on account of the torture effected upon her, by the defendant, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and reside with her sister at her native village. 6. The records further reveal that the said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit no. 02/2024. Along with the suit, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed an application seeking ad-interim temporary injunction thereby restraining the defendant/petitioner herein from entering, disturbing, interfering in the suit lands during the pendency of the suit. The said application was registered and numbered as I.A.(C)/88/2024. 7. The records further reveal that the petitioner herein as defendant appeared and filed a written statement cum counter claim. In addition to that, the petitioner/defendant also filed written objection to the said injunction application. 8. The learned Trial Court vide a detailed order dated 22.08.2024 passed an injunction thereby directing the defendant/ petitioner herein, his men, agents, servants etc from entering, disturbing, interfering, disposing of the suit land covered by Registration No. 6605, 1409 and 1717 during the pendency of the suit. Page No.# 5/8 9. The petitioner herein being aggrieved had filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered and numbered as Civil Appeal no. 02/2024. The appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court. 10. This Court had perused the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court. This Court had also heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. In addition to that, this Court has also perused the pleadings before the learned Trial Court which includes the plaint, the documents relied upon with the plaint, the injunction application as well as the written statement cum counter claim and the written objection so filed. 11. From the materials on record, it is apparent that one hand the plaintiff/respondent herein claims that she has title over the lands which have been described in the plaint and on account of the actions on the part of the defendant/petitioner herein, her rights have been clouded. It is under such circumstances the plaintiff has sought for declaration of her title in respect of the properties described in the Schedule of the plaint. On the other hand, it is the self admission on the part of the plaintiff, that she had to leave her matrimonial home on account of the torture committed by the defendant. Under such circumstances, admittedly, the plaintiff was not in physical possession of the suit land. 12. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the learned Trial Court could have passed an injunction thereby restraining the Page No.# 6/8 defendant/petitioner herein from entering into the suit lands, when the defendant/petitioner herein was already in possession of the suit land. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd. reported in 1990 (Suppl) SCC 727, more particularly to Para 9 wherein the Supreme Court observed that the Status Quo as on the date of filing of the suit should be maintained till the suit is decided. This Court duly takes note of the fact that it is a self admitted case of the plaintiff that she was not in possession of the suit land. In such circumstances, it is the opinion of the Court that the learned Trial Court ought to have maintained Status Quo in respect of the suit lands so far as the rights, title, interest as well as the possession of the suit lands, instead of passing an order thereby restraining the petitioner/defendant from entering into the suit lands wherein he was admittedly in possession thereof. 13. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court and which has been confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court in so far as passing an injunction thereby restraining the defendant/petitioner herein from entering the suit lands, amounts to orders passed which shocks the judicial conscience of this Court. The orders which have been passed appears to be perverse as the learned Court below failed to take into consideration the vital aspect that the petitioner was in possession of the suit premise. 14. Having observed so, this Court also cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the plaintiff had claimed right, title and interest over the suit Page No.# 7/8 land and under such circumstances, any third party rights if created upon the suit lands during the pendency of the suit, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 15. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, modifies the orders passed by the learned Trial Court dated 22.08.2024, which was confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court with the following directions:- a) The parties herein are directed to maintain Status Quo as regards the title and interest in respect to the properties described in the Schedule to the plaint, i.e., the properties covered by Registration Nos. 6605, 1409 and 1717, meaning thereby that the parties herein are restrained from transferring, alienating as well as encumbering the suit lands as described in the Schedule to the plaint i.e., the properties covered by Registration Nos. 6605, 1409 and 1717, in any manner whatsoever, till the disposal of the suit. b) This Court further restrains both the parties from changing the nature and character of the suit lands so described in the Schedule to the plaint i.e., the properties covered by Registration Nos. 6605, 1409 and 1717, till the disposal of the suit. c) This Court further directs that the possession of the suit lands as described in the plaint, i.e., the lands covered by Registration Nos. 6605, 1409 and 1717, shall remain as on the Page No.# 8/8 date of filing of the suit, i.e., the defendant/petitioner herein would continue to remain in possession unless a Court of competent jurisdiction passes an order thereby directing the handing back of the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. 16. With the above observations and directions, the present proceedings stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant