SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9968

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
BABAR ALI AND 4 ORS. – Appellant
Versus
LALMON ALI AND 5 ORS. – Respondent
CRP(IO) / 497 / 2025



GAHC010264982025 2025:GAU-AS:16848

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRP(IO)/497/2025

BABAR ALI AND 4 ORS.

SON OF LATE REHAN ALI, RESIDENT OF VILL-BANDIA, MOUZA-CHAPAI,

P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDAI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM -784125

2: BABUL HUSSAIN

SON OF LATE REHAN ALI

RESIDENT OF VILL-BANDIA

MOUZA- CHAPAI

P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDAI

DIST- DARRANG

ASSAM -784125

3: BAHADUR ALI

SON OF LATE REHAN ALI

RESIDENT OF VILL-BANDIA

MOUZA- CHAPAI

P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDAI

DIST- DARRANG

ASSAM -784125 4: SIBARAT ALI

SON OF LATE REHAN ALI

RESIDENT OF VILL-BANDIA

MOUZA- CHAPAI

P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDAI

DIST- DARRANG

ASSAM -784125

5: BAHAJ UDDIN

SON OF LATE REHAN ALI

RESIDENT OF VILL-BANDIA

MOUZA- CHAPAI

P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDAI

DIST- DARRANG

ASSAM -78412 VERSUS LALMON ALI AND 5 ORS.

SON OF LATE KUMUR UDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILL -BANDIA, MOUZA-

CHAPAI, P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDOI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN NO-

784125

2:NABIR ALI SON OF LALMON ALI RESIDENT OF VILL -BANDIA MOUZA- CHAPAI P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDOI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM PIN NO.-784125

3:WAKSEDUR ALI SON OF LALMON ALI RESIDENT OF VILL -BANDIA MOUZA- CHAPAI P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDOI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM PIN NO.-784125

4:IMAN ALI SON OF LATE SURJAL ALI RESIDENT OF VILL -BANDIA MOUZA- CHAPAI P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDOI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM PIN NO.-784125

5:TALEB ALI SON OF LATE SURUJAL ALI RESIDENT OF VILL -BANDIA MOUZA- CHAPAI P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDOI DIST-DARRANG ASSAM PIN NO.-784125

6:MAHIJUL HOQUE SON OF IYAJ UDDIN SEIKH RESIDENT OF VILL -BANDIA MOUZA- CHAPAI P.O. AND P.S- MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN NO.-78412 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MR. T HUSSAIN,MR. B HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MS. P BHATTACHARYA (FOR CAVEATOR), MR. A BORUA (FOR CAVEATOR)

:: BEFORE ::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

O R D E R

08.12.2025 Heard Mr. I.A. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel representing the caveators/respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai in Misc. (Appeal) No.08/2025 arising out of Title Suit No.02/2025.

3. The factual matrix leading to filing of this revision petition lies within an extremely short compass.

4. The petitioners being the plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents. Along with the plaint, an injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. The trial court granted an order of injunction. Then, the respondents being the defendants filed the appeal being Misc. Appeal No.08/2025 in the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai challenging the said injunction order. At the time of admitting the appeal, the learned appellate court stayed the injunction order and that is the reason why this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

6. The main grounds on which the High Court interferes under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are –

1. When the inferior Courts act arbitrarily.

2. When the inferior Courts act in excess of the Jurisdiction vested in them.

3. When the inferior Courts fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in them.

7. It is pertinent to note that the High Court does not interfere for correcting mere error of facts or, with a finding of the subordinate court which is within the jurisdiction of such court. However, if, such finding is perverse in such a sense that no prudent person having the knowledge of law could have arrived at such finding, or the finding is not based on any material evidence or, such finding results in manifest injustice or if there is a misdirection in law then the High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have found that the learned appellate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top