Meghalaya High Court
Dorbar Shnong Of Cleve Colony vs Shri. Peter Allan Thorose on 20 March, 2026
2026:MLHC:248
Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
CRP No.4 of 2026 Date of Order: 20.03.2026
Dorbar Shnong of Cleve Colony
Represented by its Headman,
Shri. Wadlihok Jones Nongrum
S/o S.K. Jones
R/o Cleve Colony, Shillong-793003
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
.....Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Shri. Peter Allan Thorose
S/o (L) Alexander Thorose
R/o St. Peter's School,
Shillong-793003
East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya.
.....Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Paul, Sr.Adv with
Mr. S. Khyriem, Adv
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Thabah, Adv
ORDER(Oral)
1. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.
Khyriem, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. D.
Thabah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
Page 1 of 3
2026:MLHC:248
2. This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated
30.01.2026 passed by the learned Court of the Assistant to the Deputy
Commissioner, Shillong in Misc.Case No.2(T) of 2026 arising out of
Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990, whereby the petitioner was restrained from
carrying out the ongoing construction of a footpath in Cleve Colony.
3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner was not a party to the suit and the learned Trial Court thereby,
acted in gross illegality in passing the impugned order against the
petitioner. By referring to the provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the
CPC, he contends that the law does not contemplate passing of any
injunction order against a person who is not a party to the suit. He further
contends that the action of the Trial Court in passing the injunction defied
all the rational norms of justice as the petitioner was not given any chance
to be heard before the order was passed. He, therefore, submits that it is a
fit case for this Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of process of law.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other
hand, contends that passing of the impugned order was necessitated due
to the interference of the petitioner with the suit property. He submits that
the petitioner in the guise of construction of a footpath had intruded into
the private land of the respondent for which an FIR was also lodged with
the police. He, therefore, submits that the passing of the order was aimed
at preventing illegal action of the petitioner and hence, the impugned
order cannot be faulted.
5. Upon hearing the parties, it appears that there is no dispute to the
fact that the petitioner was not a party to Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990.
There is also nothing on record to indicate that any application was filed
before the Trial Court seeking impleadment of the petitioner as a party in
Page 2 of 3
2026:MLHC:248
Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990 before the impugned order dated 30.01.2026
was passed. As the petitioner was never a part of the litigation, he could
not have been lawfully injuncted by the trial court by passing the
impugned interim order. The provision of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the
CPC nowhere authorizes a court to pass a direct order of injunction
against a person who is not a party to the suit. Moreover, it is not the case
of the respondent that the petitioner was acting under any of the
defendants in Title Suit No.21(T) of 1990. It is, therefore, clear that the
exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in passing the injunction order
against the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Hence, it is a fit
case requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction and accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed
in Misc.Case No.2(T) of 2026 by the learned Court of the Assistant to the
Deputy Commissioner, Shillong is hereby set aside and quashed.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
claim and counter claim of the respective parties and the same shall
remain open for consideration at an appropriate point of time when
required by law. This order shall also not disentitle the respondent to seek
redressal of his grievance against the petitioner in accordance with law.
7. With the above, this revision petition stands disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
20.03.2026
“Shrity,PS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SHRITY Page 3 of 3
CH MOMIN
Date: 2026.03.20 17:03:03 IST
