Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010189252024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/385/2024 SARAT KALITA AND 3 ORS. S/O- LATE ARABINDA KALITA, R/O- VILL.- PUB SITARA, MOUZA- PANDURI, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781354. 2: JITEN KALITA S/O- LATE ARABINDA KALITA R/O- VILL.- PUB SITARA MOUZA- PANDURI P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781354. 3: RABIN KALITA S/O- LATE ARABINDA KALITA R/O- VILL.- PUB SITARA MOUZA- PANDURI P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781354. 4: MANI KALITA S/O- LATE ARABINDA KALITA R/O- VILL.- PUB SITARA MOUZA- PANDURI P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781354 VERSUS GOBINDA BAISHYA AND ANR Page No.# 2/4 S/O- LATE PHANIRAM BAISHYA, R/O- RANGIA TOWN (TATIPARA), WARD NO. 7, MOUZA- PANDURI, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781354. 2:GOPAL BAISHYA S/O- LATE PHANIRAM BAISHYA R/O- RANGIA TOWN (TATIPARA) WARD NO. 7 MOUZA- PANDURI P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781354 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A C SARMA, MR G BHARADWAJ,MR B DEORI,MR N BRAHMA Advocate for the Respondent : , :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. None appears for the respondents. On the last date also, none appeared for the respondents. In view of the order dated 29.07.2026, I have decided to dispose of this revision petition today. 3. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Rangia in Misc.(J) Case No.18/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.34/2016. Page No.# 3/4 4. After hearing of argument when the case was posted for passing of judgment, the plaintiffs filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead three persons, namely, Jaduram Medhi, Dwarika Medhi and Lalmohan Medhi as defendant nos.8, 9 and 10. 5. Mr. Sarma has pointed out that in the plaint, it was mentioned that the original pattadars Jaduram Medhi, Dwarika Medhi and Lalmohan Medhi had waived their shares of land over KP Patta No.20 i.e. the suit patta 50 years ago and they have no interest and possession over any part of the land in the suit patta. The plaintiffs claimed that the total land of the suit patta had been in joint possession by the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. 6. Mr. Sarma further pointed out that in the written statement of the defendant nos.2 and 5, it is mentioned that Jaduram Medhi, Dwarika Medhi and Lalmohan Medhi had no share and possession in any portion of the suit patta land and their names are hanging in the revenue records. 7. In spite of that, the learned trial court allowed the prayer of the plaintiffs only on the ground that not allowing the prayer of impleadment of those three persons as defendant nos.8, 9 and 10 would be prejudicial to the plaintiffs. 8. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Sarma. 9. This Court is constrained to hold that the learned trial court has failed to exercise judicial mind. When both sides have claimed that Jaduram Medhi, Dwarika Medhi and Lalmohan Medhi had never possessed the suit land, they are not required to be heard in the suit. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 is set aside. 10. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case by passing a formal judgment. If the trial court feels, it shall have the liberty to rehear the oral arguments before passing the judgment. Page No.# 4/4 With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant