Gauhati High Court
Dr. Dipankar Malakar vs Dinesh Das And 2 Ors on 17 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010146732026
2026:GAU-AS:9869
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/315/2026
DR. DIPANKAR MALAKAR
SON OF SRI JOGOT CHANDRA MALAKAR, RESIDENT OF 1 NO. KATHIA
KHUNDA GAON, P.O AND P.S. - SAPEKHATI, DISTRICT - SIBASAGAR,
ASSAM, PIN- 785692
VERSUS
DINESH DAS AND 2 ORS.
SON OF UNKNOWN, C/O ASSAM STATE SCHEDULED CASTE
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SONARI, DISTRICT -
CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN - 785690
2:GOVIND MAHAPURUSHIYA
SON OF UNKNOWN
C/O ASSAM ANUSUCHIT JAATI PARISHAD
CHARAIDEO ZILLA SAMITI
MAIN OFFICE AT SAPEKHATI
CHARAIDEO
P.O. - SAPEKHATI
DISTRICT - CHARAIDEO
ASSAM
PIN -798182.
3:DIGANTA DAS
SON OF UNKNOWN
C/O ASSAM ANUSUCHIT JAATI PARISHAD
CHARAIDEO ZILLA SAMITI
MAIN OFFICE AT SAPEKHATI
CHARAIDEO
P.O. - SAPEKHATI
DISTRICT - CHARAIDEO
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
PIN- 798182
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MS. F L
MIZO,MR JITENDRA DAS,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date :17.07.2026
Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Deka,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the Order dated 22.05.2026, passed by the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Charaideo in Petition No.164/2026 arising out
of Title Suit No.03/2026.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 22.05.2026, the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Charaideo had rejected the petition
No.164/2026, arising out of Title Suit No.03/2026, filed by the petitioner for
restraining the defendants from causing any interference with the judicial
process and abuse of the judicial process by issuing any notice or drawing
up of any proceeding against the petitioner/plaintiff with respect of his
caste certificate during the pendency of the instant suit.
4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,
who has been serving as Assistant Professor in Sapekhati College, had
instituted a title suit, being T.S. No. 03 of 2026, for declaration, damages,
compensation for malicious and atrocious publication and campaigning,
Page No.# 3/7
permanent and mandatory injunction and for other relief(s). While the said
suit is pending for trial, the respondent herein had issued one notice to the
petitioner, dated 27.04.2026, for surrendering his caste certificate.
4.1. Mr. Dutta, also submits that then being aggrieved, the petitioner has
filed an application before the learned Trial Court for restraining the
respondents/defendants from causing any interference with the judicial
process and abuse of the judicial process by issuing any notice or drawing
up of any proceeding against the petitioner/plaintiff with respect of his
caste certificate during the pendency of the instant suit. But, vide
impugned order, dated 22.05.2026; the learned Trial Court had dismissed
the same without considering the fact that pending disposal of the Title Suit
such notice could not have been issued. Mr. Dutta also submits that the
impugned order was passed in flagrant disregard of law and thereby
occasioning failure of justice and also that the same has been passed in
exercise of powers by the Ld. Court below in a manner not permitted by
law and thereby causing failure of justice and occasioning grave injustice to
the petitioner. Mr. Dutta has also referred to the doctrine of Lis-Pendence in
this regard to support his contention.
4.2. Under the given circumstances, Mr. Dutta has contended to set aside
the impugned order and to remand the matter to the learned Court below
to consider the same afresh.
5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this
Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on
record and also perused the impugned order, dated 22.05.2026.
6. It appears that the title suit, being T.S. No. 03 of 2026, was instituted by
Page No.# 4/7
the petitioner herein, for alleged defamation and for declaration, damages,
compensation for malicious and atrocious publication and campaigning,
permanent and mandatory injunction and for other relief(s). The said suit is
pending for trial before the learned court below. And the respondent
herein, pending trial of the suit had issued one notice to the petitioner,
dated 27.04.2026, for surrendering his caste certificate.
6.1. Further, it appears that the learned Trial Court, while dismissing the
petition, observed as under:-
“It appears from the record that the present suit has
been instituted by the plaintiff seeking compensation
on account of alleged defamation. The notice dated
27.04.2026, which forms the basis of the present
petition, is a communication admittedly addressed by
the defendants to the plaintiff personally. At this
stage, whether the contents of the said notice are
defamatory in nature or not is a matter to be
adjudicated upon during trial on the basis of
evidence to be led by the parties. Further, this
Court is of the considered view that no blanket order
can be passed restraining a party from issuing
notices or initiating legal proceedings, as restraint
may amount to curtailing the legal remedies otherwise
available to a litigant under law. Mere apprehension
of prejudice, without establishing any imminent abuse
of the process of Court or irreparable injury, is not
sufficient for invoking inherent powers under Section
151 CPC.
It is also well settled that inherent powers under
Section 151 CPC are to be exercised sparingly and
only where no specific remedy is available under the
Code and where ends of justice so require. In the
Page No.# 5/7present case, the plaintiff has failed to show any
exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of such
inherent jurisdiction.
Moreover, the impugned notice, being a private
communication between the parties, cannot prima facie
be treated as publication constituting actionable
defamation at this interlocutory stage.”
6.2. However, having gone through the record this Court finds that the
petitioner herein, in the said Title Suit also prayed for following relief(s).
(iv) Grant a decree of permanent injunction,
restraining the defendants from making any
defamatory statements, written communication and
campaign, as regards the false claims against the
Plaintiff by the defendant on news media.
(v) Grant a decree of mandatory injunction
against Defendants to remove all such written
communication to various authorities, articles,
photographs and videos from all News Medias,
published against the character of the Plaintiff.
(vi) Grant Ad interim injunctions and ad interim
mandatory Injunctions in respect of prayer nos.
iv. & v.
6.3. It also appears that along with the said suit, Misc (J) Case
No.04/2026 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 of the CPC
was also filed by the petitioner praying for grant of temporary injunction. It
is, however, not clear from the record as to the outcome of the said Misc(J)
Case.
7. However, from the contentions made in the petition and also from the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it becomes apparent that
Page No.# 6/7
the suit is pending and the court is in seisin of the subject matter. And it is
well settled that once a civil suit is instituted and the court is in seisin of the
matter, parties must generally channel disputes regarding the suit’s subject
matter (including documents or certificates central to the claims) through
the court proceedings. In that view of the matter, the actions by a
defendant in issuing a formal notice demanding surrender of a caste
certificate, that forms part of the dispute, may amounts to interfering with
the court’s authority. It seems to be abuse of process.
7.1. The respondents herein, could have raised the issue in their written
statement, counter-claim, or by filing an application in the title suit,
seeking directions for production/surrender if relevant. They, however,
cannot bypass this by direct notice, as it undermines the court’s exclusive
role in adjudicating the issues.
7.2. But, this aspect of the matter eschewed consideration of the learned
Trial Court. Thus, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr.
Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, this Court has
reservation in connection with applicability of doctrine of lis pendens in this
matter, which is covered by Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
8. In the result, this Court finds merit in this petition and is inclined to
dispose of the same at this motion stage itself by remanding the matter to
the learned Trial Court to consider the same, however, the Misc (J) Case
No.04/2026, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC
was also filed by the petitioner praying for the grant of temporary
injunction, if in the meantime the same has not been disposed of. And to
facilitate in carrying out such an exercise the impugned order dated
22.05.2026, stands set aside and quashed.
Page No.# 7/7
9. The parties have to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
