CRP 449/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner instituted a suit, namely, Title Suit No. 422 of 2010, seeking, i nter alia, a decree for specific performance of contract for sale of land and al so for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agent or any person, claiming under him, from making any construction, either permanent or kutcha, ov er the scheduled land and for injunction restraining the defendant, his agent or any person, claiming under him, from alienating and/or otherwise transferring t he suit land, by any means, to any third person. On institution of the suit, the petitioner also filed an application seeking tem porary injunction in terms of the prayers for permanent injunction, which had al ready been made, in his plaint, as the plaintiff. The application for injunction gave rise to Misc. (J) Case No. 614 of 2010. By order, dated 13-10-2010, learne d Munsiff No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati, directed issuance of notice to the defendant- opposite party. Considering the fact that the Court was entering into a long vac ation, it directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo, in respect of the suit premises, till 08-11-2010. The petitioner, as plaintiff, failed to take requisite steps to get the notices issued, to the defendant-opposite party, in terms of the directions given in the order, dated 13-10-2010, aforementioned. On the date fixed, i.e., on 08-11-2010 , the petitioner filed a petition, in Misc. (J) Case No. 614 of 2010, stating to the effect, inter alia, that pursuant to the order, dated 13-10-2010, aforement ioned, steps could not be taken inasmuch as the plaintiff’s counsel came to know about the order aforementioned, at about 4:15 pm, on 13-10-2010 and, therefore, sought for permission to take steps regarding service of notice and prayed for direction be given to the parties to maintain status quo as indicated hereinbefo re. By order, dated 08-11-2010, the said petition was rejected. It is against th e order, dated 08-11-2010, that the present revision has been filed. The reason, assigned for rejecting the petition, is that in terms of the order, dated 13-10 -2010, steps have not been taken. The impugned order is absolutely silent as to why the submissions, made by the petitioner, assigning reasons for not being abl e to take steps within the time span, found acceptable to the Court. Situated thus, it is clear that in the face of the fact that it is not in disput e that the petitioner’s counsel came to learn about the order, dated 13-10-2010, at about 4:15 pm and the subsequent days, the Courts being on vacation, the lea rned Court below ought to have allowed the minimum possible time to the plaintif f to take steps. Omission to do so, in a case of the present nature, is failure to exercise jurisdiction in terms of the requirement of the law. Because of what have been discuss and pointed out above, the impugned order, dat ed 08-11-2010, is hereby set aside and appropriate order is hereby directed to b e passed, by the learned Court below on the petition, which had been filed by th e plaintiff-petitioner, on 08-11-2010. Let the petition, which has given rise to the order, dated 08-11-2010, be taken up for consideration and necessary order, in the light of the observations made hereinbefore, on 16-11-2010. With the above observations and directions this revision shall stand disposed of . No order as to costs.