Meghalaya High Court
Aritson R. Marak & Ors vs Phikir Khongwir & Ors on 20 March, 2026
Serial No. 03
Supplementary HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
List AT SHILLONG
Crl.Petn. No. 18 of 2026 with
Crl.M.C. No. 39 of 2026
Date of order: 20.03.2026
Aritson R. Marak & ors vs Phikir Khongwir & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr A.G. Momin, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr K. Khan, AAG with
Mrs S. Laloo, GA
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order
dated 31st October, 2025 in CT Case No. 46 of 2025 passed by
the learned Executive Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh; the
order dated 26th November, 2025 in the Executive Proceeding
No. 1 of 2025 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ri-
Bhoi District, Nongpoh; and the order dated 5th March, 2026 in
CT Case No. 45 of 2025 passed by the learned Executive
Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh. The petitioner also seek
quashing the entire proceeding pending before the learned
Executive Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh.
Page 1 of 4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the
petitioners had filed a title suit in the Court of the Presiding
Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Nongpoh. He states
that in the said title suit, the petitioners had filed a
miscellaneous application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 CPC and prayed for grant of an ad-interim
injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and her agents from
interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the
petitioners (original plaintiffs) over the suit land. He states that
the learned Judge after hearing the petitioners
(plaintiffs/applicants) observed that the balance of convenience
lies in favour of maintaining the existing state of affairs until the
dispute is adjudicated upon after hearing the parties and
accordingly, directed the defendant No. 1, her agents, servants,
representatives or any person claiming through her are
restrained from interfering or disturbing the peaceful possession
and occupation of the petitioners (original plaintiffs) over the suit
land.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that
despite there being an interim order, albeit ex parte, passed in
Page 2 of 4
favour of the petitioners in the title suit, the learned Executive
Magistrate is attempting to evict the petitioners from the suit
land. He submitted that the said action of the learned Executive
Magistrate was contrary to law and as such, cannot be
sustained.
5. Issue notice to the respondents returnable by 16th April,
2026.
6. Mr K. Khan, learned AAG waives notice on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 3 to 6. He seeks time to take instruction. The
concerned Officer to remain present in Court on the next date
with instruction.
7. In addition to Court notice, learned counsel for the
petitioners to serve private/dasti notice on the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the
petitioners before the next date.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, in
the meantime, till the next date, the proceedings pending before
the learned Executive Magistrate, Ri-Bhoi, Nongpoh, i.e., the
Page 3 of 4
proceeding CT Case No. 46 of 2025, Proceeding No. 1 of 2025
and CT Case No. 45 of 2025, shall stand stayed till the next date.
9. Stand over to 16th April, 2026.
(Revati Mohite Dere)
Chief Justice
Meghalaya
20.03.2026
“Sylvana PS”
Page 4 of 4
