1. Heard Mrs. T.Yangi, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. R.Debnath on behalf of the respondents-Union of India and Mr.
K.Khan on behalf of the respondent No. 1.
2. Petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the illegal and arbitrary Order dated 23.09.2016
passed by the learned Munsiff at Shillong in Title Suit No. 1 (H) 2015 whereby she has mechanically rejected the application No.
136/15 dated 08.12.2015 filed by the Petitioner herein under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Shillong although
it has been categorically stated that the landed property in dispute being GLR Survey Plot No. 138 which is the subject matter of the
aforesaid Title Suit is not under the control and management of the Cantonment Board but is under the exclusive control and
management of the Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati and who has been arraigned as the Defendant No. 2 in the said Title Suit.
Being aggrieved by such illegal Order the Humble Petitioner approaches this Hon''ble Court for Redressal of its genuine grievances.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. T.Yangi submits that the petitioner was unnecessarily made a party in the Title Suit No. 1 (H) 2015 as
petitioner has nothing to do with the management and control of the suit premises in question before the learned Munsiff. In that regard, she moved
an application before the Court but the same was rejected. Hence, this instant petition.
4. On the other hand, Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC on behalf of the Union of India said that their presence may be required but could not satisfy
this Court as to what role the petitioner has in the Title Suit No. 1 (H) 2015. Heard also Mr. K.Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
who has no objection.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also further submits that the eviction notice was issued by the Defence Estate Officer who is Defendant No. 2
in the said Title Suit and the Cantonment Board is not going to touch the suit premises unless it is ordered as they have no jurisdiction as well as
control and management over the same.
6. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner has no
jurisdiction over the suit premises, in such circumstances they should not be dragged in the instant case. However, in the course of trial if they are
found that they have any role, they can be made a party.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23-09-2016 passed by the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No. 1 (H) 2015 is hereby set aside.
8. With this observation, the instant petition is allowed and stands disposed of. Registry is directed to send back the lower case record along with
a copy of this order immediately.
