Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2 (MEG)

Helen Dkhar v. Emily Synrem

2022-01-20

WANLURA DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Wanlura Diengdoh, J. - rd Mr. L. Khyriem learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that this is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for exercise of supervisory power on the functioning of the court of the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (J) at Shillong. 2. Mr. Khyriem has further submitted that the landed property situated at Nongrim Road, Laitumkhrah, Shillong covering an area of 5463 sq.ft is the subject matter of a civil dispute pending before the civil court at Shillong between the parties herein. This plot of land is adjacent to a landed property measuring about 11,187 sq.ft which land was sold to the deceased husband of the petitioner No. 1 (Late) Gilbert Siangshai vide Sale Deed dated 04.06.1997. On 17.11.2000, (Late) Gilbert Siangshai had executed a Sale Deed on purchase of the land measuring 5463 sq.ft mentioned above. However, possession of the same could not be taken as the same was under the possession of (Late) Rana Purkayastha the husband of the respondent No. 1 herein. The then owner of the said land (Late) Himadri Purkayastha had instituted a suit for recovery of possession from (Late) Rana Purkayastha being Title Suit No. 11(T)1999(old)/Eject Title Suit No. 9(T)2013(new) and the same is pending before the court of Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (J), Shillong. 3. In due course the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 had preferred an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 for ad-interim injunction to restrain the petitioner from erecting any gate at the main entrance of the path towards the compound of the respondents and the learned court had issued a restraining order against the petitioner herein in Misc. Case No. 90(T)2017. On parties being heard in this matter, the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (J) vide order dated 30.10.2017 made the ad-interim injunction order dated 24.08.2017 absolute. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 30.10.2017, the petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal before the court of the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J), Shillong being FAO No. 8(T)2017 and the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J) vide order dated 17.04.2018 was pleased to admit the appeal and to call for the records from the Trial court being Title Suit No. 236(T)2013 along with Misc. Case No. 90(T)2017. 5. Deputy Commissioner (J), Shillong being FAO No. 8(T)2017 and the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner (J) vide order dated 17.04.2018 was pleased to admit the appeal and to call for the records from the Trial court being Title Suit No. 236(T)2013 along with Misc. Case No. 90(T)2017. 5. It is again submitted that inspite of being aware that the relevant records have been called for and duly produced before the appellate court, the respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A r/w Section 151 CPC registered as Misc. Case No. 85(T)2021 arising out of Title Suit No. 236(T)2013 and Misc. Case No. 90(T)2017 and the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner (J), Shillong without affording any opportunity to show cause and hearing to the petitioners herein, vide order dated 22.10.2021 was pleased to direct the petitioners not to undertake any construction works in the land of the petitioners. Another application registered as Misc. Case No. 100(T)2021 arising out of Misc. Case No. 85(T)2021 was also filed by the respondent herein and on the learned court calling for filing of show cause, the petitioner entered appearance and had raised an objection against the maintainability of the applications filed by the respondents on the ground that since the relevant records was seisin by the appellate court, the case records no longer being available with the learned Trial court, the Trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said applications. Misc. Case No. 105(T)2021 was also filed by the petitioners in this regard. However, this objection was rejected by the learned court and finally, vide order dated 22.12.2021 the learned Trial court passed the impugned order holding that the applications being Misc. Case No. 85(T)2021 and Misc. Case No. 100(T)2021 cannot be dismissed by the court without according the OP an opportunity to file show cause and to be heard. 6. Mr. Khyriem has submitted that being aggrieved by the said impugned orders, whereby, the learned Trial court had acted without jurisdiction, this Court is approached with a prayer to set aside and quashed the said impugned orders. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage without going to the merits of the matter, notice is directed to be issued against the respondents herein returnable within 10 days. 8. List this matter on 04.02.2022.