BANI KANTA MEDHI Vs. HIMADRI KISHORE DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Satyajeet Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Samnur Ali, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. AR Molier for the Respondent.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs in TS No. 161/16. The respondents herein were arrayed as Defendants No.1 and 2 respectively in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction. Along with the suit, the petitioners had also filed a separate application under Or. XXXIX R.1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 213/16. The learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by order dated 20.06.2016, passed the order of ad-interim injunction. The respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against the said order, which was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 39/2016. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati vide order dated 30.11.2016. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the said order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the lea-rned Additional District Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. Appeal No. 39/2016.

(3.) Along with the present revision, the petitioners have filed a separate application under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 for granting ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondent No.1 from proceeding with any construction beyond building permission dated 9.4.2012, which is registered as I.A.(C) No. 2335/16. The Respondent No.1, who had appeared by filing a caveat has filed their affidavit-in- opposition to the said application. During the pendency of the said Interim Application, the petitioners have also filed a separate application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with section 151 CPC for inspection of the suit premises, which is registered as I.A.(C) No. 197/2017. The revision has come up for 'admission hearing'. This court was of the view that there would be a repetition of same hearing at (i) the 'admission stage', (ii) for consideration of prayer for injunction, (iii) for consideration of prayer for inspection of suit premises, and again (iv) at the time of final hearing. On this question being posed, the learned counsel for the parties have all agreed that the entire matter be heard and disposed off at the admission stage itself to avoid repetition of almost similar set of argument at four stages as indicated above. Thus, the entire matter is taken up for hearing.