Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010045902026 2026:GAU-AS:7588 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/68/2026 ABDUL HALIM AHMED S/O LT. ABUL KASHEM, R/O VILL- KALGACHIA, MOUZA- RUPSHI, P.O.- KALGACHIA, P.S.- KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319 VERSUS NAYEB ALI AND 11 ORS. S/O LATE KURPAN ALI @ KORAN ALI, R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI, MOUZA- RUPSHI, P.O.- GUNIALGURI, P.S.- KALGACHIA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319 2:KHANDAKAR MUSARAF HUSSAIN S/O KH. KERAMAT ALI R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 3:ABDUS SALAM S/O LATE CHANDULLAH R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 4:TAZ UDDIN ALI AHMED S/O ALIM UDDIN BHUYAN R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI Page No.# 2/6 MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 5:JAMELA KHATUN W/O AYAN R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 6:AYMONA W/O IMAN R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 7:EUNUS ALI S/O SABED R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 8:ABDUR RASHID S/O LATE MAJAM ALI R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 9:SAMSUL HOGUE AHMED S/O FAZAR ALI R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA Page No.# 3/6 DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 10:MOSTAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O RAMJAN ALI R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 11:RAHUL AMIN S/O MANIR AHMED R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 12:KHAIRUL ALOM S/O MANIR AHMED R/O VILL- GUNIALGURI MOUZA- RUPSHI P.O.- GUNIALGURI P.S.- KALGACHIA DIST- BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR. A W MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 01.06.2026 Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, counsel for the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Page No.# 4/6 proceeding of TS No. 5 of 2025, which was instituted before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta, is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 3. At this juncture, the Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to read out the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Having read the said Act, the Court posed a query as to whether any of the prayers made in the plaint is covered by the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 4. For a better understanding of the prayer made in the plaint, the same is extracted below: “i. Decree of specific performance of contract be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant on the basis of the deed of agreement for sale dated 30/06/2023. ii. Decree be passed directing the defendant to execute the Regd. Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the Schedule “B” suit land, receiving the remaining balance consideration amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakh) only from the plaintiff. iii. In the event of failure to execute the Regd. Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to execute the Regd. Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff retaining the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakh) only of suit land. iv. Decree of Permanent Injunction be passed restraining the defendant, his men and representatives to enter into the Schedule “B” suit land after disposal of the suit. v. Decree the cost of the suit be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. vi. Decree such any other relief or reliefs in favour of the plaintiff, to which the plaintiff is entitled under the provision of law and equity.” 5. On a query of the court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits Page No.# 5/6 that he may be incorrect in making his statement, but that is his submission that the suit was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 6. It is at this stage that the Court takes an exception to the nature of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be permitted to make any submission which he likes and then make a statement that that is his understanding of law. The nature of the prayer made in this suit has no bearing on the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Moreover, in none of the statements made in the plaint, including the cause title, the suit is stated to be filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 7. Therefore, the only impression that the Court can gather from the nature of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only is he ignorant of the provisions of law, but that being fully aware that the impugned order dated 25.07.2025, which was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta in Misc.(J) Case No. 171 of 2025, arising out of TS No. 5 of 2025, which is an order of injunction, ordinarily an appeal would lie under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) CPC against any order passed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. Thus, in order to avoid filing of an appeal, by way of a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the CPC, an order of injunction has been assailed, and to sustain this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has falsely submitted that the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 8. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement before the Court, which he knows to be false. On this ground alone, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed in limine, Page No.# 6/6 particularly because an order of injunction passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC cannot ordinarily be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Nonetheless, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has wasted the valuable time of the Court and has advanced false submissions by referring to suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, there is sufficient reason for this Court to, prima facie, conclude that the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to mislead the Court. 10. Accordingly, the said conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioner is referred to the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh to take an appropriate call. 11. This revision stands dismissed. 12. Let a copy of this order and copy of this application be forwarded to the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh to take a call in the matter. 13. The Registry shall send a copy of this order to the learned trial Court to make it a part of the record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant