logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 202 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : CRP No. 38 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Parties : Nayan Kumar Debbarma & Another Versus Thalukti Debbarma & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Sudipta Sekhar Debnath, Advocate. For the Respondent: Deba Ranjan Chowdhury, Senior Advocate, Diptanu Debnath, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 08-05-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 THC 575,
Judgment :-

1. Both the petitioners in this Revision are the defendants.

2. The respondents herein are the legal heirs of the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff had filed T.S. 25 of 2022 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sepahijala District, Sonamura for declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit land and a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

4. Plaintiff had also filed Civil Misc. (Inj) 13 of 2022 in the said Title Suit under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC for a temporary injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing him.

5. After contest, the said application was allowed on 18.04.2023, and a temporary injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land till the final disposal of the suit.

6. Challenging this order, defendants/petitioners herein filed Misc. Appeal 01 of 2023 before the Court of learned District Judge, Sonamura, Sepahijala District.

7. By order dt.17.03.2025, the order of the Trial Court in the temporary injunction application was affirmed by the learned District judge and the Misc. Appeal 01 of 2023 was dismissed.

8. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.

9. Notice was issued in this Revision on 20.06.2025, and the legal heirs of the plaintiff have appeared through their counsel.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Though counsel for the respective parties have raised several contentions on the merits of the claims of their respective clients in the suit, since the suit is pending adjudication, it is not desirable in my opinion, to express any opinion on the respective claims of the parties in this Revision or on the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court, either in Civil Misc. (Inj) 13 of 2022 arising out of T.S. 25 of 2022 or in Misc. Appeal 01 of 2023, as any observation made by this Court in this Revision, might influence the Trial Court when it decides the suit.

12. But the fact remains that there is a temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiff from 18.04.2023 till date i.e. for more than three years.

13. Therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below at this juncture.

14. The instant Revision Petition is disposed of directing the Trial Court to decide the suit uninfluenced by any observations made or findings given either in Civil Misc. (Inj) 13 of 2022 dt.18.04.2023 by the Trial Court or in the order dt.17.03.2025 in Misc. Appeal 01 of 2023 by the lower Appellate Court.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal