SHILLONG, India, March 23 -- Meghalaya High Court issued the following judgment on Feb. 20:

1. Heard Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 has decided the case of the parties herein, in Second Appeal No. 4 of 2023, wherein, on consideration of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.2023, passed by the First Appellate Court as well as the related judgment and order dated 23.12.2015, passed by the Trial Court, had dismissed the said Second Appeal, though such dismissal being conditional.

2. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the dispute between the parties primarily revolves around a land covered by a Lease Deed 20.03.1923, which is a lease agreement entered into between the parties for that piece and parcel of land measuring about 10.19 acres. This Court has come to a finding that the said land is in the possession of the petitioner club and that such possession has not been disturbed in any way.

3. The learned counsel went on to submit that the respondents on 18.02.2026, a day after the said judgment was passed has engaged workers to erect bamboo and wire fencing on the southern side of the suit property. This portion measuring approximately 5.030 acres, is part of the 10.19 acres which is the suit land in question.

4. The learned counsel has reiterated that this Court in the Second Appeal at para 49 of the judgment (supra) has observed that there is no finding or direction which has specifically bestowed the respondent clan with any relief, for example, that the respondents are allowed to take possession of the suit land. The suit land would remain intact as the possession of the appellant club over such land has not been disturbed. Therefore, the action of the respondents are designed to overturn and disregard the findings of this Court and for such wilful violation, disregard and disobedient of this judgment dated 17.02.2026, the respondents may be called upon to appear in person and to show cause as to why necessary order for such act contempt be not passed against them.

5. The learned counsel has further submitted that, though, there is no specific prohibition or direction issued upon the respondents in this regard, however, the conduct of the respondents was aimed at frustrating court proceedings and also to take advantage of the dismissal of the Second Appeal by this Court, even though, the said dismissal is conditional in nature. The respondents could have resorted to valid legal procedure, if they are so aggrieved, but as has been submitted, the manner in which they have conducted themselves, would demonstrate the fact that they have no regard for due process of law. In this connection, the case of Celir LLP vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727, para 199 and 200 have been referred in support of this contention.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv%2Fzj6nsDLDptH9w%2FIeDE8ZGXkK7v1AckvgPurDcpmnGJ&caseno=Cont.Cas(C)/4/2026&cCode=1&cino=MLHC010001442026&state_code=21&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.