Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010141642025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/246/2025 DR MANBENDRA LAHKAR S/O LT. BHADRA RAM LAHKAR, R/O RANGIA TOWN, WARD NO. 3, P.O. AND P.S.- RANGIA, MOUZA- PANDURI, DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM), PIN- 781354 VERSUS SMTI. MALATI NATH AND ANR W/O SRI AMULYA CH. NATH, R/O RANGIA TOWN, WARD NO. 3, P.O. AND P.S.- RANGIA, MOUZA- PANDURI, DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM) 2:AMULYA CH. NATH S/O LATE PRATAP NATH R/O RANGIA TOWN WARD NO. 3 P.O. AND P.S.- RANGIA MOUZA- PANDURI DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MR. B SAHARIA,MS A BEGUM,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : MR D KALITA (R-1,2), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 15.10.2025 Page No.# 2/5 1. Heard Dr. Manabendra Lahkar, the petitioner appearing in person. Also heard Mr. D. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Dr. Manabendra Lahkar, impugning the order dated 29.04.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup, Amingaon in Title Suit No. 25/2017. For the sake of convenience, impugned order dated 29.04.2025, passed in Title Suit No. 25/2017 is quoted herein below:- “29.4.25 Both the parties are represented. The Id. Counsel for the defendant has submitted that some of the documents submitted as exhibit by the plaintiff have already been submitted before this court and some of them have been submitted without obtaining the leave of this court, for which they ought not to be admitted. This court in the interest of speedy trial, deems it fit to mark those documents as exhibit, under objection and the final admissibility of those documents in evidence shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. Page No.# 3/5 The plaintiff has submitted evidence on affidavit of PW-1 along with service copy to the defendant. Hence, I appoint Id. Commissioner Sri Dipak Kalita (Contact No.9365470330) to record the cross examination. Inform the parties. Fixed 10/06/25 for Commissioner's Report.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though he is not aggrieved with the impugned order, however, he has been verbally informed by the Advocate Commissioner, who has been entrusted to record the cross- examination of the witness. However, those documents which are admitted are objection, shall not be allowed to be proved by the plaintiff during cross- examination. 4. The petitioner-in-person has also submitted that the submissions made by the counsel for the defendant before the Trial Court, that no leave was obtained from the Trial Court before submitting some of the documents is not true inasmuch as the Trial Court while allowing the prayer for amendment of the plaint, by its order dated 11.08.2022 had directed the plaintiff (petitioner) to furnish an amended copy of the claim with documents within 15(fifteen) days from the date of this order. 5. The petitioner appearing in person submits that in pursuant to the said order, the plaintiff had submitted the amended copy of the plaint, along with annexure on 26.08.2022, i.e. within 15(fifteen) days from the said order. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits Page No.# 4/5 that the impugned order has been passed in favour of the present petitioner, and there appears to be no irregularity in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides and has also gone through the materials available on record. 8. On bare perusal of the impugned order, there appears to be no illegality as the Trial Court while passing the impugned order has clarified that the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendant regarding admissibility of some of the documents may be decided finally at the time of hearing of the suit. 9. This Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the aforesaid observations. It also appears that by the impugned order the Trial Court has also found it fit to mark those documents, as regards which objection was raised as exhibits under objection. 10. The submissions of the petitioner-in-person that the Advocate Commissioner has objected to the said observation made by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment is not acceptable inasmuch as the Advocate Commissioner is bound by the observations made by the impugned order in the Trial Court. 11. In view of the above, this Court does not find merit in the instant revision petition and accordingly, same is disposed of with the above observations. 12. The interim order, whereby the stay was granted on further proceeding of the Title Suit No. 25/2017, pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup, Amingaon is accordingly, vacated. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant