Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069552025 2026:GAU-AS:8990-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/114/2026 MANSUR ALI AHMED SON OF NIZAMUDDIN AHMED, RESIDENT OF NEAR TV CENTER, PO CR BUILDING, DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 786001 VERSUS 1.SMTI SANTOSHI AGARWALLA AND ANR. WIFE OF SRI SANJAY AGARWALLA, RESIDENT OF MANCOTTA, PS AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. 2:SRI SANJAY AGARWALLA RESIDENT OF MANKOTTA TOM TOM TULA PO MANKOTTA PS AND DISTRICT DIBRUGARH ASSAM 78600 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.J. Das, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.I. Akand, Advocate. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 22.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.I. Akand, learned Advocate for the respondents. Page No.# 2/4 A property dispute between the parties led to filing of Title Suit No.166/2022. This dispute was with respect to right of pre-emption over the suit property. The injunction petition, filed by the appellant seeking to restrain the respondents from taking possession of the suit property was rejected by the Trial Court on 17.11.2022 on the sole plea of the respondents already being in possession of the property. In FAO No.58/2022, preferred by the appellant against the refusal of the Trial Court to pass any restraint order, this Court, vide order dated 16.12.2022, modified the order passed by the Trial Court and directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property until the Title Suit was finally disposed off. The Trial Court was further directed to expeditiously dispose off the trial. A Contempt Petition [Contempt Case (Civil) No.215/2023] was later filed by the appellant alleging that the respondents were making changes in the property in question in violation of the status quo order. In the afore-noted contempt petition, notices were issued and the status quo order was reiterated after taking into account the inspection report of the Court Commissioner. However, the learned Single Judge modified the earlier order of status quo by indicating that any business, which is being carried out by the respondents, would be allowed to be continued but only in the manner in which no further alteration is carried out in the property or changing the nature of the business that is already being carried out. Page No.# 3/4 This modification of the earlier order of status quo has been questioned by the appellant on the ground that the same is impermissible in a contempt jurisdiction. In a contempt jurisdiction, the Court is required to see whether there is existence of any clear and binding order; whether the order has been violated and lastly, whether such violation was willful. Beyond that, no inquiry or subsequent modification of the order is permissible. A contempt Court cannot supplement or modify an order, for which the contempt petition has been filed. Contempt jurisdiction is a machinery for enforcement of an already existing order and not for adjudicating any substantive rights. No further relief can be granted in a contempt jurisdiction as that would amount to a Court travelling beyond the judgment. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, tried to defend the afore-noted directions issued by the Contempt Court by stating that it was only a clarificatory order in the sense that such permission was granted with a clear imperative that the respondents would be permitted to carry on business in such a manner as was being conducted in the past, which would not either change the nature of the business which was being conducted, and would also not alter the nature of the property. We, therefore, dispose off this appeal with a direction that the original order dated 16.12.2022, by which the status quo was passed, should be enforced strictly and any business which was not carried out by the respondents prior to the order of status quo, shall not be Page No.# 4/4 permissible under any circumstances. Any violation of the afore-noted order till the time the Civil Suit is finally disposed off, would be viewed seriously. The Trial Court is also directed to dispose off the Civil Suit as early as possible. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant