w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Daphishisha Shullai v/s The Shillong Club Ltd. & Another

    CRP No. 26 of 2022

    Decided On, 15 September 2022

    At, High Court of Meghalaya

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. THANGKHIEW

    For the Petitioner: Dr. N. Mozika, Sr. Adv, M.L. Nongpiur, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Jindal, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Judgment & Order (Oral):

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 dated 12.08.2022, 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 dated 12.08.2022, and subsequent action, whereby notice of violation of injunction dated 16.08.2022, 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 dated 12.08.2022 and 16.08.2022, 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.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. This Court by order dated 30.08.2022, at the motion stage on being prima facie satisfied, had passed interim orders suspending the operation of the injunction notice dated 12.08.2022, until 1 st September, 2022. The instant matter was then fixed for admission but however, as there was an attempt for an out of Court settlement, the matter stood adjourned till the next date i.e., on 12.09.2022. However, as the matter could not be settled the same has been taken up today for admission hearing.

6. Though the Learned Trial Court did not lack jurisdiction in passing the order of interim injunction dated 12.08.2022, and issuing notice thereon, it was the contents of the notice and the subsequent order of violation of injunction that prompted this Court to pass the interim order staying the same. As the matter, has now been brought to an even keel, it would be expedient in the interest of justice, that the matter be not detained before this Court any further, and the same be remanded back to the Trial Court for adjudication in accordance with law.

7. It has also been informed that the next date fixed for the Title Suit is on 28.09.2022 before the Trial Court. In this view of the matter therefore, the respondent(defendant) as it has been stated has not yet filed a show-cause to the injunction application, is therefore directed to fi

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

le the same by 19.09.2022, and the Trial Court to take up the matter positively on 28.09.2022 itself and pass orders thereon. 8. Till such orders are passed in the injunction matter that is Misc. Case No. 88(T) of 2022 in Title Suit No. 18(T) of 2022, status quo shall be maintained by both the parties. 9. With the above noted directions the Revision Application accordingly stands disposed of.
O R