Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15069 (GAU)

SMTI JOYMONI BASUMATARY AND 2 ORS v. SMTI REBIKA @ RIBEKA BASUMATARY AND 3 ORS.

CRP(IO)/85/2021 · 2025-03-09

Devashis Baruah

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010139872021 2025:GAU-AS:2552 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/85/2021 SMTI JOYMONI BASUMATARY AND 2 ORS W/O LATE PRONOY BASUMATARY, R/O NO. 1 SAPKHAITI, WARD NO. 5, UDALGURI TOWN, P.O.-UDALGURI, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST-UDALGURI, B.T.A.D ASSAM, PIN-784509 2: MISS PRISKLINA BASUMATARY D/O LATE PRONOY BASUMATARY R/O NO. 1 SAPKHAITI WARD NO. 5 UDALGURI TOWN P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI B.T.A.D ASSAM PIN-784509 3: DAWGA BASUMATARY S/O LATE PRONOY BASUMATARY R/O NO. 1 SAPKHAITI WARD NO. 5 UDALGURI TOWN P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI B.T.A.D ASSAM PIN-78450 VERSUS SMTI REBIKA @ RIBEKA BASUMATARY AND 3 ORS. W/O SRI TARUN BASUMATARY, R/O UDALGURI TOWN, P.O.-UDALGURI, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST-UDALGURI, B.T.A.D. ASSAM, PIN-784509 2:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Page No.# 2/6 REPRESENTED BY THE AREA MANAGER INDANE AREA OFFICE MARKETING DIVISION NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781021 3:BINOY DAIMARI S/O LATE AKHAR DAIMARI R/O VILL-BALISINGA MOUZA-AMBAGAN P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI BTC ASSAM PIN-784509 4:TARUN BASUMATARY S/O LATE ANTHOP BASUMATARY R/O VILL-KAHIBARI P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI BTC ASSAM PIN-78450 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. AR Shome Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Pushilal Mr. A Jahid B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 10.03.2025 Page No.# 3/6 Heard Mr. AR Shome, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. B Pushilal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Mr. A Jahid, the learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. This is a petition challenging the order dated 26.07.2011 passed in Title Suit No.02/2017 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Udalguri. 3. It is seen that the learned Trial Court vide the order dated 26.07.2011 disposed of two applications. First is the application filed by the plaintiff who is the respondent No.1 herein, whereby the plaintiff suit for a direction upon the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the various documents mentioned in the said petition being Petition No.606/2021 dated 30.07.2019. It is further seen that vide the said impugned order another petition being Petition No.607/2021 dated 30.07.2019 was also disposed of. It is relevant to take note of that while Petition No.606/2021 dated 30.07.2019 is a petition directing the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the documents mentioned in the said petition, the Petition No.607/2021 dated 30.07.2019 is a petition thereby to permit the plaintiffs to adduce secondary evidence. 4. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired with Mr. AR Shome, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as to which are the documents presently in the possession of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the documents which have been specifically mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V) are in the possession of the Page No.# 4/6 petitioners. He, however, submits that the petitioners who are the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not in possession of the other documents. 5. Mr. B Pushilal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff submitted that the documents Nos.11(B), 11(C), 11(D), 11(E), 11(F), 11(G), 11(H), 11(I), 11(J), 11(L), 11(N), 11(P), 11(Q), 11(R) and 11(S) though are the photocopies of the documents, but these documents contain the original signature of Pronoy Basumatary (since deceased). 6. Taking into account the above submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Udalguri in Title Suit No.02/2017 requires certain modifications, inasmuch as, the said order had been passed without taking into consideration that in respect to some of the documents, the petitioners have not taken steps as is otherwise envisaged under the law. Even otherwise also, it is relevant to take note of that when there was a petition being filed seeking directions upon the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce certain documents without disposal of the said petition, the learned Trial Court could not have directed the adducing of secondary evidence in terms with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. Taking into account the above, this Court disposes of the instant revision petition with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i). The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, who are in power and possession of the Page No.# 5/6 documents mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V) are directed to produce the said documents before the learned Trial Court on the next date so fixed; (ii). As regards the documents referred to hereinabove wherein the plaintiffs contends that these documents contain the original signature of Pronoy Basumatary (since deceased), it is the opinion of this Court that the said documents be admitted into evidence, however, subject to such objections which may be raised by the defendants in the suit; (iii). It is the further opinion of this Court that these objections be dealt with at the time of appreciation of the evidence while the suit is decided by the learned Trial Court. (iv). This Court further takes note of that the further proceedings of Title Suit No.02/2017 was stayed vide the order dated 05.10.2021 by this Court. The said stay order stands vacated. Taking into account that all the parties in the suit are duly represented before this Court, they are, therefore, directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 09.04.2025. (v). It is observed that on the said date i.e. 09.04.2025, the petitioners herein who are the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall produce the documents mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V). On production of such documents, the learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in respect to the said documents and thereupon proceed with the disposal of the suit in accordance with law. 8. With the above, the revision petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant