Meghalaya High Court
Mrs. Abdul Haque vs . on 14 July, 2026
Serial No.17
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC (SA) No. 3 of 2026 in
SA No. 1 of 2026 Date of Order: 14.07.2026
___________________________________________________________
Smti. Florida Kharshiing @ Shri. G.D. Gupta
Mrs. Abdul Haque Vs.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Jha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Khan, Adv.
Ms. Z. Begum, Adv.
(Oral)
Heard Mr. R. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of necessary
direction for implementation of the status quo order dated 29.04.2026
passed by this High Court in MC (SA) No. 1 of 2026 and also for directing
the respondent to remove the lock put by him on the suit premises over and
above the lock of the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite passing of
the order dated 29.04.2026 directing for maintenance of status quo by the
parties, the respondent has put his lock on the suit premises above the lock
of the petitioner in utter disregard to the order. He submits that the order
dated 29.04.2026, particularly, the submissions made on behalf of the
Page 1 of 3
respondent duly noted by the Court would show that the suit premises was
never put under lock by the respondent.
The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits
that the lock complained of by the petitioner was in existence prior to the
passing of the order dated 29.04.2026 as the same was placed on
27.04.2026 during the execution proceedings, which continued till late
evening. He refers to the statement made in para 6 of the petition and para 5
of the show-cause in support of his submission.
A perusal of the order dated 29.04.2026 reveals that the Court while
passing the order of status quo had taken into consideration the fact that
there was no report from the bailiff as far as the execution proceeding is
concerned. The relevant part of the order reads “This Court on
consideration of the submission made, as has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that till date there is no report from the bailiff as
far as the fade of execution is concerned. Therefore, it can be assumed that
the same is not yet completed.”
Furthermore, in the order dated 29.04.2026, the submission advanced
on behalf of the respondent was duly noted, which reads “Mr. A. Khan,
while objecting to the prayer made has submitted that the opposite party
herein would concede only to the extent that the suit premises be put under
lock and key in the meantime.”
It is clear from the order of status quo dated 29.04.2026, more
particularly, from the submission made on behalf of the respondent, that
there was no existing lock placed by the respondent on the suit premises at
the time when the order was passed. Therefore, it is apparent that the lock
placed by the respondent on the suit premises was after passing of the
status quo order.
Under the circumstances, to ensure that the order of status quo
prevails in terms of the order dated 29.04.2026, the respondent is hereby
directed to remove his lock from the suit premises within 24 hours. It is
Page 2 of 3
made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the respondent to
comply with the direction made, necessary consequential order will follow.
List this matter on 16.07.2026 for compliance report by the
respondent.
Judge
Meghalaya
14.07.2026
“Abhinandan PS”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Page 3 of 3
ABHINANDAN KUMAR
Date: 2026.07.14 16:02:51 IST
