Gauhati High Court
RSA/82/2011 of MUSTT.PUTUL MUSALMANI ALIAS MAJIDA BEGUM AND 4ORS Vs SMTI REENA PHUKAN AND 10 ORS on 5 November 2026
GAHC010005082011 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/82/2011 MUSTT.PUTUL MUSALMANI ALIAS MAJIDA BEGUM AND 4ORS W/O LATE SAFIUR ROHMAN 2: MUSTT. MOMINA BEGUM D/O LATE SAFIUR ROHMAN 3: MUSTT. SAHERA BEGUM D/O LATE SAFIUR
GAHC010005082011
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/82/2011
MUSTT.PUTUL MUSALMANI ALIAS MAJIDA BEGUM AND 4ORS
W/O LATE SAFIUR ROHMAN
2: MUSTT. MOMINA BEGUM
D/O LATE SAFIUR ROHMAN
3: MUSTT. SAHERA BEGUM
D/O LATE SAFIUR ROHMAN
4: MD. ABIDUR ROHMAN
S/O LATE SAFIUR ROHMAN
5: MD. ABDUL ROHMAN
S/O LATE SAFIUR ROHMAN
ALL R/O WARD NO.10
GOLAGHAT TOWN
DIST. GOLAGHAT
VERSUS
SMTI REENA PHUKAN AND 10 ORS
W/O KULADHAR PHUKAN
2:DILIP PHUKAN
S/O KULADHAR PHUKAN
3:PRODIP PHUKAN
S/O KULADHAR PHUKAN
4:MONDIP PHUKAN
S/O KULADHAR PHUKAN
5:SMT. NIJORA PHUKAN
D/O KULADHAR PHUKAN
6:SONESWAR PHUKAN
S/O LATE SUCHENDRA PHUKAN
ALL RESIDENTS OF KAMARGAON
MOUZA-KHUMTAI
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.
7:MUSTT. AIJORI KHAN
W/O LATE DHAN KHAN
8:MD. RAFEL KHAN
S/O LATE DHAN KHAN
9:MUSTT. RUNU BEGUM
D/O LATE DHAN KHAN
10:MD. SORIB KHAN
S/O LATE DHAN KHAN
11:MUSTT. MAFIDA BEGUM
W/O MD. MAZFAR KHAN
ALL RESIDENTS OF WARD NO. 10
GOLAGHAT
DIST. GOLAGHA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M Z AHMED, MR.S K SARMA,MR.A DUTTA,MR.A M
DUTTA,MS.B DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K BHUYAN, MS.M B SARMA,MR.R RABHA,MR. K
SAIKIA,MR.D K BHATTACHARYYA,MS.S CHAKRABORTY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
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
06.11.2026
1. None has appeared for the appellants on call.
2. Mr. A Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 5 is present.
3. On perusal of the records, it appears that on earlier occasion also when the matter was listed before this court, none represented the appellants.
4. Under such circumstance, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing this matter.
5. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is dismissed for default.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant