CHANDRA KANTA KALITA AND ANR vs TAPAN KUMAR DAS AND 17 ORS Advocate - MS. A GOSWAMI, ,FOR CAVEATOR,MR. M BHAGABATI,MR. M P DAS — CRP(IO)/166/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section ART 227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 05th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010085802026

e-Filing Number

02-05-2026

Filing Number

CRP(IO)/4891/2026

Filing Date

02-May-2026

Registration No

CRP(IO)/166/2026

Registration Date

04-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10244 - Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 209 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

05-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section ART 227
Code of Civil Procedure Section 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHANDRA KANTA KALITA AND ANR

    Adv. MR. K N CHOUDHURY,MR. M MAHANTA,MR. M MAHANTA, ,MS. S MAHANTA,MR. M MAHANTA

  2. 2.KESAB KALITA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TAPAN KUMAR DAS AND 17 ORS Advocate - MS. A GOSWAMI, ,FOR CAVEATOR,MR. M BHAGABATI,MR. M P DAS

  2. 2.NAREN DAS

  3. 3.NRIPEN KUMAR DAS

  4. 4.MADHABI DAS

  5. 5.DIGANTA DAS

  6. 6.HEMANTA DAS

  7. 7.DOLY DAS

  8. 8.BARUN DAS

  9. 9.SABITRI DAS

  10. 10.MANJU DAS

  11. 11.MIKTA DAS

  12. 12.HAREN DAS

  13. 13.RAMESWAR DAS

  14. 14.HAREN DAS

  15. 15.RABINDRA KUMAR DAS

  16. 16.KAMINI DAS

  17. 17.NABAJYOTI DAS

  18. 18.AMR JYOTI DAS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 05-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Robin PhukanView PDF

    Case Summary: CRP(IO)/166/2026 Decision: The Gauhati High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order sealing the entry gate to the disputed property. Justice Robin Phukan held that closing the petitioners' only access point to their residence through an enforcement proceeding under CPC Order XXXIX Rule 2(A)—a coercive/punitive tool—exceeded the court's authority, as such proceedings cannot grant substantive relief regarding suit property. The court found the gate-sealing order illegal and arbitrary while the underlying title suit remained pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRP(IO)/166/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRP(IO)/166/2026 Decision: The Gauhati High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order sealing the entry gate to the disputed property. Justice Robin Phukan held that closing the petitioners' only access point to their residence through an enforcement proceeding under CPC Order XXXIX Rule 2(A)—a coercive/punitive tool—exceeded the court's authority, as such proceedings cannot grant substantive relief regarding suit property. The court found the gate-sealing order illegal and arbitrary while the underlying title suit remained pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case