WA 35/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI. THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Ranjan Gogoi, J. Heard Sri B. C. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri P. S. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the official responden ts. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondents. The appellants (respondent Nos.6 & 7 in WP(C) No.3516/2006) had booked a flat in the Ashirvad Apartments which was promoted by the main respondent in the appeal i.e. the writ petitioner. A dispute arose between the parties with regard to th e entitlement of the appellants to get possession of the flat. The appellants cl aim that they had tendered the necessary payments due. At some point of time the flat came into the possession of the appellants and thereafter at their instanc e a prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr.P.C. was passed on 31.5.2006 prohibi ting entry of any other person into the flat in question. The prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr.P.C. was challenged by the respondent-writ petitioner in t he writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. The learned Single Judge b y judgment and order dated 19.1.2007 allowed the writ petition, inter alia, sett ing aside the order dated 31.5.2006 passed under Section 144, Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.1.20 07 the flat is no longer in possession of the appellants. The primary thrust of the arguments made on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge had committed an apparent error in interfering with the or der dated 31.5.2006 passed under Section 144, Cr.P.C. as on the date of the ord er of the learned Single Judge the said prohibitory order had ceased to remain in force by efflux of time. It is the further contention on behalf of the appell ants that the dispute between the parties are the subject matter of adjudication in Title Suit No.140 of 2006 which is presently pending in the Court of the lea rned Civil Judge Senior Division No.1 at Guwahati. As an adjudication of the re spective rights of the parties was pending before the competent civil court the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the prohibitory order und er Section 144, Cr.P.C. If the prohibitory order under Section 144, Cr.P.C. had ceased to be in operatio n on the date of the order of the learned Single Judge we fail to see as to how this writ appeal can be said to have given rise to any live issue between the pa rties which would need our consideration. As the order passed under Section 144, Cr.P.C. had already spent its force any examination of the grounds and reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for the view taken would be an entirely aca demic exercise which the Court should not perform. We, therefore, decline to go into the merits of this appeal. However, we have noticed that there are certain observations in paragraph 14 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.1.2007 which could cause preju dice to the appellants in the course of adjudication of Title Suit No.140 of 200 6. In the aforesaid paragraph 14 the learned Single Judge had recorded that the deed of agreement between the parties does not have any validity. Having regard to the context in which the aforesaid view was recorded by the learned Single Ju dge we deem it appropriate to clarify that the said observation was made by the learned Single Judge in the context of the validity of the order passed under Se ction 144, Cr.P.C. and the same was not intended to have any effect on the pendi ng civil adjudication. We, therefore, direct that the proceedings in Title Suit No.140/2006 shall be conducted without being influenced by the aforesaid finding s recorded by the learned Single Judge in para 14 of the order dated 19.1.2007. The writ appeal, consequently, shall stand closed in terms of our observations a s above.