Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18109 (GAU)

RAJA ROY AND 2 ORS v. TARA SINGHA AND 5 ORS

CRP(IO)/351/2025 · 2025-08-21

Parthivjyoti Saikia

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010188382025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/351/2025 RAJA ROY AND 2 ORS DIST. CACHAR 2: PURNIMA ROY DIST. CACHAR 3: PRIYA ROY SAHA ALL ARE SON AND DAUGHTER OF LATE RUNU ROY R/O NATIONAL HIGHWAY SILCHAR TOWN SILCHAR 5 PORGONA BORAKPAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS TARA SINGHA AND 5 ORS W/O LATE NANDA KUMAR SINGHA 2:SMT. KAMALABATI SINGH D/O LATE NANDA KUMAR SINGHA 3:MANJU SINGH DIST. CACHAR 4:NANADAN SINGHA DIST. CACHAR Page No.# 2/3 5:UTTAM SINGHA ALL ARE SONS OF LATE NANDA KUMAR SINGHA 6:RAM KUMAR SINGHA S/O LATE BROJOA BABU SINGH ALL ARE R/O VILL. AMBIKAPUR TOWN AS BHAKATPUR PH BORAKPAR PS. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS B DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 22.08.2025 Heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution challenging the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Cachar, Silchar in T.S. No. 46/2007. 3. The petitioners are plaintiffs before the Trial Court. They relied upon the Volume Book of documents (Exhibit 2) to prove their Sale Deed in the trial. 4. On being objected to by the other party, the Trial Court refused to grant the said prayer on the ground that it would amount to filling up the lacunas. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Page No.# 3/3 6. The plaintiffs have a right to prove their document. So they can easily call the Volume Book of documents (Exhibit 2) from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Silchar to prove their Sale Deed. 7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.11.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 5, Cachar, Silchar in T.S. No. 46/2007 is bad in law and stands set aside. 8. The plaintiffs shall call for the Volume Book of documents (Exhibit 2) from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Silchar to prove their Sale Deed. With the aforesaid direction, the revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant