Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/1341/2026 of MEENA BEGUM Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 1 September 2026
GAHC010167402018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Civil)/1341/2026 MEENA BEGUM D/O BAHAR ALI NANDAN PATH WARD NO. 52 SIX MILE KHANAPARA AMGAON BONDA GAON GUWAHATI 781026 2: SMTI CHERRY DOLEY HUSSAIN. D/O GANGESWAR DOLEY CHANDRAPUR ROAD
GAHC010167402018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
I.A.(Civil)/1341/2026
MEENA BEGUM
D/O BAHAR ALI
NANDAN PATH
WARD NO. 52
SIX MILE
KHANAPARA
AMGAON
BONDA GAON
GUWAHATI 781026
2: SMTI CHERRY DOLEY HUSSAIN.
D/O GANGESWAR DOLEY
CHANDRAPUR ROAD
BYE LANE NANDAN PATH
AMGAON
NARANGI MILITARY AREA
NARANGI
GUWAHATI 781026
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
DISPUR CHARIALI BRANCH AT GANESHGURI
KAHILIPARA ROAD
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781006
2:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
DISPUR CHARIALI BRANCH AT GANESHGURI
KAHILIPARA ROAD
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781006
------------
Advocate for the applicant(s): Mr. IS Mazumdar Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. M Sharma B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
02.09.2026 Heard Mr. IS Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicants seeking leave of this Court to be arrayed as party respondents to the accompanying writ petition being WP(C)No.5395/2018 on the ground that the applicants have entered into an agreement for sale with the auction purchaser.
3. This Court has duly perused the agreement for sale and taking into account Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as an agreement for sale does not create any right and it merely entitles the person in favour of whom the said agreement for sale has been executed a right to get the document for sale executed, it is the opinion of this Court that the Applicants are neither necessary or proper parties to the accompanying writ petition.
4. Considering the above, the instant interlocutory application stands rejected.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant