Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010110822025 2025:GAU-AS:10988 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/196/2025 M/S VAISHNO DEVI TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED ITS DIRECTOR YOUDHITRA BHAMA AND BALWAN BHAMA, HOUSE NO. 35-A, BANGAON, NEAR INCOME TAX RESIDENTIAL COLONY, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781028 AND ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT N.H 37, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, INDIA-781028 VERSUS M/S BRAHMAPUTRA TECHNOLOGIES AND 4 ORS. A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT SILVER SQUARE, 5TH FLOOR, CHRISTIAN BASTI, P.S.- DISPUR, G.S ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781005 (ASSAM) AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI PRITOMJIT HAZARIKA, S/O LATE NIRIKAR HAZARIKA, R/O RATNA PEETH, NEAR RIVERSIDE, UZANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-781001, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:PRITOMJIT HAZARIKA PARTNER OF M/S BRAHMAPUTRA TECHNOLOGIES S/O LATE NIRIKAR HAZARIKA R/O RATNA PEETH NEAR RIVERSIDE UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:PRISM ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF BUSINESS AT 13 MILE TAMULKUCHI BYRNIHAT-793101 Page No.# 2/11 DIST- RIBHOI MEGHALAYA AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI NARESH KRO 4:CANARA BANK A BODY INCORPORATE AND DULY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 112 J.C ROAD BANGLORE-560002 DOING THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AT DIVERSE PLACE ALL OVER INDIA AND IN PARTICULAR BRANCH OFFICE AT FANCY BAZAR BRANCH DUGAR BUILDING HEM BARUAH ROAD FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI-1 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM-781001 AND ISS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER 5:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE - NEDFI HOUSE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781007 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N SAIKIA, MR M Z RAHMAN,MRS. P GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CANARA BANK, MR. N BARUAH(R-2),MR. K N CHOUDHURY (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 19.08.2025 Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Page No.# 3/11 2. In this revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, M/S Vaishno Devi Traders Private Limited, has challenged the order dated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, (hereinafter- Tribunal) in I.A No. 724/2024 of SA No. 107/2019, filed by the petitioner for placing on record a compilation of 20 documents of which 8 documents were new and 12 documents were already on record, was dismissed. 3. Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the 3rd party auction purchaser of the auction property carried out by the Canara Bank i.e. Proforma Respondent no. 4 herein. She also submits that the respondent No. 1 and 2 had defaulted in their loan taken from Proforma Respondent No. 4 and 5. Accordingly, an auction notice was issued by Proforma Defendant No. 4, wherein the petitioner took part in the auction and paid Rs. 6,11,00,000/- to the Proforma Defendant No. 4 against the auction property, and the Proforma Defendant No. 4 confirmed the sale via Sale certificate dated 01.10.2019 issued by the name of Auction Purchaser. 3.1. Ms. Saikia also submits that the Respondent No. 01, 02 and 03 approached Debts Recovery Tribunal against the e-auction dated 08.08.2019 by filing SA No. 107/2019 with a prayer for setting aside the e- auction notice and restraining Proforma Defendant No. 4 from taking actual and khas possession of the schedule premises. Then the petitioner filed an IA, being No. 724/2024 in SA No. 107/2019 with a prayer for placing on record a compilation of 20 documents. That out of 20 documents only 8 documents were new and other 12 no's of documents are already in records. The documents, which the present petitioner desirous to place Page No.# 4/11 before the Learned Tribunal below for proper adjudication of the case are mentioned below:- (i) Report of Assam survey directing revenue officers to do the needful as per report. Report of the Assistant Director regarding non-updation of revenue map and physical presence of land of Dag no 756 entirely on the north of the National Highway. (ii) Rule circular 3- regarding map mismatch between jamabandi and maps, jamabandi (written records prevailand map correction to be undertaken). (iii) Copy of circular for attaching and get the trace map prepared upon sale permission at the time of registration registered. (iv) RTI of no record available of Sale Deed of 2007 schedule. (v) Copy of aerial survey conducted via drone showing the land of Dag No. 756 available entirely on the north of the Highway. (vi) Copy of boundaries of the property since 2007 google historical images. (vii) Letter from gaon panchayat regarding Hiren path land and Table showing no Land in Jamabandi for accommodating extra 3 kathas of land. (viii) Land updation request sent to revenue officer pending since 2020. 3.2. Ms. Saikia also submits that the respondent No. 1 had filed affidavit- in-opposition by stating that no justification, reasons or explanation has been provided by the petitioner as to how the said documents being sought Page No.# 5/11 through the I.A to be introduced are relevant to the issues forming the subject matter of the S.A. She also submits that these documents were not in possession of the petitioner and the same was submitted to the Tribunal well before all the I.A's pending in S.A no. 107/2019. Further Ms. Saikia submits that the main S.A 107/2019 is not yet decided and the same is pending before the Tribunal. 3.3. Ms. Saikia also submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Revision Petition-20/2025 for a suitable direction to the Learned Tribunal for allowing to submit the additional documents. However, on 26/03/2025 the revision petition came up for hearing but due to some technical mistake the counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the petition with a liberty to file a fresh petition. Earlier revision petition was filed within the limitation period and that the present petition also is in limitation period from 26-03-2025 to filing of this present revision petition. 3.4. Further submission of Ms. Saikia is that the present Civil Revision is filed by the petitioner under the following grounds: i) That the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that out of the compilation of 20 documents filed in I.A 724/2024, 12 documents were already part of the case record of S.A 107/2019 and additional 8 documents were not available with the Petitioner before filing of I.A 724/2024. ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal failed to appreciate that most of the new documents are very recent document like the document no. 03 Report of Assistant Director of Surveys dated 23.08.2024, document no. 13- RTI dated 29.3.24, The aerial survey and google historical image document no. 15 and 16 is of June, Page No.# 6/11 2024 and the Gaon Panchayat letter dated 04.04.2022. Thus, most of the new documents are of latest date and were not available in the hands of petitioner to be produced before the Tribunal. iii) That the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that Order 14 Rule 2 at any stage of the proceeding, allows the Court to permit filing of additional documents. iv) That the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC says that the court may at any time allow additional documents even after the written statement has been filed. v) Section 151 of the CPC gives the court inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice, including allowing the filing of additional documents. 3.5. In the premises aforesaid Ms. Saikia has contended to allow this Civil Revision Petition as the production of the documents aforesaid are very much essential for perusal and better appreciation of the dispute. She has referred following decisions in support of her submission:- (i) Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Savitri Devi, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 348, (ii) Rameshwar Lal vs. Jagdish Singh, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 266; (iii) Smt. Sneh Prabha vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 364; (iv) State of Maharashtra vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 518, (v) M/s. ICDS Ltd. vs. M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd., reported in (2013) 13 SCC 131; Page No.# 7/11 4. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondents, questioned about the very maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition for being filed after delay of two months, with mala-fide intention, without there being any explanation for the delay. Mr. Choudhury also submits that there is no explanation as to how the additional documents are crucial to succeed in the plea and that there was lack of due diligence to procure the document and also there is absence of explanation regarding the relevancy and also the reason as to why the same could not be produced at the time of hearing. Under such circumstances, Mr. Choudhury has contended to dismiss the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, referring to its affidavit-in-opposition, submits that there was alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and instead of availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court after considerable delay and that it is well settled that when alternative and effacious remady is available, the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Mr. Dutta also submits that the petitioner had participated in the proceeding and also submitted written argument and that admittedly, the petitioner had already placed on record 12 documents and the learned Tribunal has found the same sufficient to decide the matter, while rejecting remaining 8 documents. It is the further submission of Mr. Dutta that there has already been delay in disposal of the matter and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition. Page No.# 8/11 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 and also gone through the decisions referred by Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is not in dispute the proceeding of S.A. No. 107/2019 is at the last stage and the petitioner herein had already filed its written arguments. It also appears that main parties in the S.A. No. 107/2019 are M/S Brahmaputra Technologies and Canara Bank and the petitioner is a third party auction purchaser and stranger to the mortgage deed. 8. That perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Tribunal had dismissed the petition (I.A. No. 724/2024) on the ground of absence of relevancy or connection to the issue forming the subject matter of the said SA. The operative portion of the order read as under:- “The petitioner (respondent no 5) is a third party and the stranger to the mortgage deed, therefore, he has no locus to challenge the validity of mortgagee deed. The petitioner is not seeking to assert any ownership in respect to Dag no 756, so he cannot make any comment or observation with regard title, ownership and possession of the SARFAESI Applicant in respect of Dag no 756, of sale deed no 8834/2007. The purported documents have not any relevance pouring or connection to the issue forming the subject matter of the present SA. Moreover, the petitioner has not given any particulars as to the date and time, when such documents came to the knowledge of the petitioner. No explanation has been provided by the petitioner as to how the petitioner could not have Page No.# 9/11 obtained copies of the said documents prior in point of time. The said documents are of matters of public records and as such there is no reason as to why the petitioner could not have obtained the access of the said document prior to the point of time. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in IA No. 724/2024. Hence IA No. 724/2024 is dismissed and disposed of.” 9. I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that in the case of Kalyan Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the court has the power to allow the filing of additional documents at any stage of the proceedings, even after the written statement has been filed. Then in the case of Rameshwar Lal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the power to allow the filing of additional documents is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously. In the case of Smt. Sneh Prabha(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the court can allow the filing of additional documents even after the arguments have commenced, if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. Then in the case of the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the power to allow the filing of additional documents should be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice. And in the case of M/s. ICDS Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the court has the power to allow the filing of additional documents even in appeal proceedings. 10. Thus, it is well settled that the power to allow filing of additional Page No.# 10/11 documents is discretionary and can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding. In the case in hand, the learned Tribunal has examined the documents being sought to be produced before it and thereafter, arrived at a finding that the purported documents does not have any relevance or connection to the issue, forming the subject matter of the present SA. And thereafter, applying its discretion it had dismissed the petition. Nothing is placed on record or being argued to show that the learned Tribunal had exercised such discretion in a non-judicious manner. Besides, the learned Tribunal has found that the petitioner has not given any particulars as to the date and time, when such documents came to the knowledge of the petitioner and no explanation has been provided by him as to how the petitioner could not have obtained copies of the said documents prior in point of time. 10.1. Indisputably, the said documents are of matters of public records and no reason was shown by the petitioner as to why the petitioner could not have obtained the access of the said document prior to the point of time. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party. It is stranger to the mortgage deed for which he has no locus to challenge the validity of mortgage deed. Over and above, the petitioner has not been seeking to assert any ownership in respect to Dag no. 756, so he cannot even raise any finger in respect of title, ownership and possession of the applicant under SARFAESI Act, in respect of Dag no 756, of sale deed no. 8834/2007. In the given factual backdrop, the decisions referred by Ms. Saikia would not come into her assistance. 10.2. It also appears that efficacious and alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and instead of availing the same, it has preferred the Page No.# 11/11 present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that when efficacious and alternative remedy is available, the petition under Article 227 is generally not maintainable. This Court is unable to record concurrence to the submission of Ms. Saikia that only for better perusal of the Tribunal, addition documents are required to be filed while relevancy of such documents had already been held to be absent by the learned Tribunal. 11. Thus, having tested the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order, on the light of the discussion made herein above, this Court is unable to derive satisfaction that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for interference of this Court, invoking its revisional jurisdiction. 12. In the result, I find this petition devoid of merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. J U D G E Comparing Assistant