DAPHISHISHA SHULLAI Vs. SHILLONG CLUB LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Application under Rule 36-A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order of injunction order dtd. 12/8/2022, passed by the Court of the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Misc. Case No. 88(T) of 2022 in Title Suit No. 18(T) of 2022, wherein restraining orders had been passed against the petitioner who is one of the defendants in the said suit.

(2.) It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, though the order impugned is not available with the petitioner at the time of filing this petition, the contents of the notice dtd. 12/8/2022, and subsequent action, whereby notice of violation of injunction dtd. 16/8/2022, was passed has compelled the petitioner to come before this Court seeking interference and relief under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the notice of injunction has directed the petitioner(defendant) to not enter the suit premises, when in fact, the same is under her possession, and that the order on the other hand has directed the parties to maintain status quo, that to, as given in the notice, till the next date fixed or until further orders. It is contended by Dr. N. Mozika, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the orders dtd. 12/8/2022 and 16/8/2022, are unsustainable in law and has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as, they are confusing and self-contradictory. He therefore submits that the impugned orders be set aside.

(3.) Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the respondent (plaintiff) has raised objections as to the maintainability of the Revision Application due to the presence of alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC or a appeal under Rule 36-A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937, and submits that there is no cause for interference by this Court. He further submits that even the show-cause to the injunction application has not been filed by the petitioner (defendant) and the main injunction matter is yet to be adjudicated and decided.