KRISHNA GOPAL KARMAKAR Vs. JANARDHAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 15.11.2019 Heard Mr. R Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A Islam, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 6.

(2.) The petitioner as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 62016 in the court of learned Civil Judge, Kokrajhar along with an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. The said petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 62016 in the said court below. Upon motion the learned trial court directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo in respect of the nature, feature and status of the suit land as on the date of passing the order. Being aggrieved the defendantsrespondents filed an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC challenging the said order dated 20.03.2018 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 62016 which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No. 22018 in the court of learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Kokrajhar. The said appeal was disposed of vide the impugned judgment dated 16.03.2019 thereby setting aside the order of status quo passed by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffpetitioner is before this court by filing this revision petition.

(3.) Mr. Dhar submits that the learned court below while passing the impugned judgment came to the finding as if the suit was disposed of after the trial. He is apprehensive that the findings of the appellate court, if allowed to remain, will adversely affect the plaintiff petitioner. The court below came to the finding that Late Mahendra Saha, the predecessor-in- interest of Jhantu Saha from whom the plaintiff purchased the suit land measuring 1K 7- 1/2 Ls was entitled at least to the extent of 17 Ls. Under such circumstances, if the petitioner is not protected even from the said 17 Ls of land irreparable loss would be faced by the plaintiffpetitioner.