Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010052882021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : : I.A.(Civil)/1037/2021 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 87 M.G. ROAD FORT MUMBAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT STAR CITY COMPLEX 5TH FLOOR LACHIT NAGAR NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR G.S. ROAD GHY- 7 VERSUS BINITA PATOWARY AND 2 ORS. W/O. SRI MUKUL BARMAN R/O. VILL.- FULGURI P.O. PANIGAON P.S. BELSOR DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781303 2:NAYANJYOTI HALOI S/O- SRI BHARAT CH. HALOI R/O- H/NO. 29 WARD NO. 55 JAYANAGAR CHARIALI P.O. BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781022. 3:KULADIP TALUKDAR Page No.# 2/4 S/O- LATE RANIMOHAN TALUKDAR R/O- VILL.- KAITHALKUCHI P.S. BELSOR DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781370. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : appearing for BINITA PATOWARY AND 2 ORS. MACApp./82/2021 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 87, M.G. ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT STAR CITY COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, LACHIT NAGAR NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781007. VERSUS SMTI. BINITA PATOWARY AND 2 ORS. W/O- SRI MUKUL BARMAN, R/O- VILL.- FULGURI, P.O. PANIGAON, P.S. BELSOR, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781303. 2:NAYANJYOTI HALOI S/O- SRI BHARAT CH. HALOI R/O- H/NO. 29 WARD NO. 55 JAYANAGAR CHARIALI P.O. BELTOLA GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781022. 3:KULADIP TALUKDAR S/O- LATE RANIMOHAN TALUKDAR R/O- VILL.- KAITHALKUCHI P.S. BELSOR DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781370 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. P BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S N KRISHNATRAYA (R1) Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 01.04.2025 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Mr. S.N. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This interlocutory application, under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order 41 Rule 27 of the said Code filed by the applicant to adduce additional evidence and documents in this appeal. 3. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the course of hearing of MAC Case No. 785/2017, before the learned Tribunal, though the applicant/appellant herein was allowed to adduce evidence, but the said could not be adduced, on account of fault of the counsel for the applicant/appellant herein. 3.1 Mr. Goswami, further submits that the appellant herein had obtained verification report of driving license of the driver of the Swift Dzire vehicle, issued in the name of Kuladip Talukdar, and the said driving license was found to be a fake document. But, the said document could not be exhibited before the learned Tribunal due to fault of the counsel and therefore, it is contended to allow the applicant/appellant herein to adduce additional evidence. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed the application. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the applicant herein, I have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record. Page No.# 4/4 6. It appears that the applicant has already preferred one review petition before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has dismissed the same vide order dated 18.01.2021, on the ground that the insurance company took as many as six consecutive dates to adduce their evidence, but failed to adduce evidence for which the evidence of both the parties were closed on 06.05.2019. 7. Since the review petition of the applicant was dismissed by the Learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati and since the applicant has failed to avail the ample opportunity being afforded to him, again allowing the applicant to adduce evidence at this stage, in an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, would be unjust and improper and it would amount to allowing the applicant to fillup lacuna and it would also cause prejudice to the other side and on such counts, this application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant