Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010079082023 2025:GAU-AS:4868 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/115/2023 MD. MUNNAF AHMED SON OF LATE MAKIBUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 4, F.A. ALI AHMED NAGAR, PANJABARI, P.O.- KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI- 781022, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS RAJIB SAIKIA SON OF SRI NIRMAL SAIKIA, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF - VILLAGE- MOHEEMEBARI, P.O.- MOHEEMEBARI, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT- GOLAGHAT TOWN, JONAKI NAGAR TINIALI, P.O. AND P.S.- GOLAGHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, PIN- 785621, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MR P SARMA,MR A HUSSAIN,MR D HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R PHUKAN, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 23.04.2025 Heard Mr R Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr Page No.# 2/4 R Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked to challenge the order dated 02.03.2023, passed in Petition No. 92/2023, arising out of Money Suit No. 3/2022, by the Court of the Civil Judge at Golaghat (hereinafter, referred to as “the learned trial Court”), whereby the said petition being Petition No. 92/2023 was not only allowed, but also leave was granted to adduce secondary evidence of the said documents, which have been mentioned in the said petition. 3. Mr R Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff/the respondent herein had filed a suit and along with the said suit, the documents which have been mentioned in the petition being Petition No. 92/2023 from Serial No. (iii) to Serial No. (xii), were filed along with the plaint. However, the documents at Serial Nos. (i) and (ii) of the petition were not filed. He further submitted that in terms with Order 7 Rule 14 (2), there is no mention also in the plaint that the documents at Serial Nos. (i) and (ii) of the Petition No. 92/2023, were in possession of the defendant, which is a requirement as per the Code. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a perusal of the petition being Petition No. 92/2023, would show that the plaintiff/the respondent herein, have only sought for leave for submission of the said documents at the time of evidence, which under no circumstances, can be said to be an application in terms with Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for the purpose of allowing secondary evidence. In addition to that, the learned counsel further submits that the petition being Page No.# 3/4 Petition No. 92/2023, would require a judicial determination. However, the said petition is not even supported by an affidavit, as would be clearly seen from the said petition itself, which is contrary to Order 6 Rule 15 (4) as well as Rule 15 of the Civil Court Rules and Order, framed by the Gauhati High Court. 5. Mr R Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff submitted that although the petition so filed was not in the proper manner, but in actuality, the said petition was for the purpose of adducing secondary evidence of the documents, which have been mentioned in the said petition being Petition No. 92/2023. He, therefore, submits that in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court ought not to interfere with the said order. 6. This Court has duly given an anxious consideration to the materials on record, including the petition being Petition No. 92/2023 dated 10.01.2023, as well as the impugned order dated 02.03.2023, passed in Petition No. 92/2023. It shocks and surprises this Court, the manner in which the learned Trial Court had passed the said order, thereby permitting the plaintiff/respondent to adduce secondary evidence, even without there being compliance to the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It further surprises this Court that the learned trial Court even did not consider that what was the relief sought for, in the said petition, inasmuch, as relief sought for in the petition was to grant leave to the plaintiff/respondent for submission of the said documents at the time of evidence. Further to that, this Court is also shocked and surprised that the said petition has been entertained, which does not even contain an Page No.# 4/4 affidavit, which is otherwise the requirement when an application is filed seeking judicial determination. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that that the order dated 02.03.2023, passed in Petition No. 92/2023, arising out of Money Suit No. 3/2022, pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge at Golaghat (now Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Golaghat), is required to be interfered with and accordingly, this Court interferes with the same and sets aside the same. 7. It is also seen from the records that vide an order dated 28.04.2023, the further proceedings of Money Suit No. 3/2022 was stayed. In view of the disposal of the instant petition, the said stay order stands vacated and the parties, who are duly represented before this Court, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court, on 13th of May, 2025, for further proceedings of the said suit. 8. Before parting with the record, this Court, however, makes it clear that the interference so made by this Court to the order dated 02.03.2023, passed in Petition No. 92/2023, shall not preclude the plaintiff/the respondent herein, to file an appropriate application, if so advised. 9. This disposes of the Civil Revision Petition (I/O) No. 115/2023. JUDGE Comparing Assistant