VIKASH AGARWAL v. SMTI. MINOTI DEKA NEOG AND 2 ORS.
CRP(IO)/278/2022 · 2025-03-12
Susmita Phukan Khaund
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20697 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20697 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010235942022
2025:GAU-AS:2658
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/278/2022 VIKASH AGARWAL SON OF SRI BAJRANG LAL AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF TUKRIGOLA, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125. VERSUS SMTI. MINOTI DEKA NEOG AND 2 ORS. WIFE OF LATE BIREN NEOG, RESIDENT OF BORBILL NO. 1, DIGBOI, P.O. AND P.S.- DIGBOI, DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM PIN- 786171. 2:LAKHI DEKA DUTTA WIFE OF LATE ACHINTYA KUMAR DUTTA
RESIDENT OF BORBILL NO. 1
DIGBOI P.O. AND P.S.- DIGBOI
DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786171. 3:CHAMPA DEKA SAIKIA WIFE OF CHAKRESWAR SAIKIA
RESIDENT OF BORBILL NO. 1
Page No.# 2/4 DIGBOI P.O. AND P.S.- DIGBOI
DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN- 786171 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR J DAS,MS. J BORO,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 13-03-2025 Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bhaskar Dutta assisted by the learned counsel Mr. S. Deka for the petitioner Sri Vikash Agarwal, who has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff, Margherita in Title Suit No. 40/2021 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff despite the fact that the defendants, who are arrayed as respondents in this petition, have not raised any objection against the petition, filed by the plaintiff/petitioner in T.S. No. 40/2021. 2. It is further contended that it was erroneously observed by the learned Magistrate that as the document is a public document, the certified copy of the unregistered Sale Deed would suffice. It is contended that the petitioner/plaintiff in his plaint has categorically stated that the original Sale Deed in question was illegally taken by the defendants/respondents. 3. The Court after considering the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner
Page No.# 3/4 under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide order dated 14.08.2019 was pleased to direct the defendants to produce the original Sale Deed to decide the Title Suit No. 40/2021.
The petitioner/plaintiff had to file a petition dated 30.08.2022 as the defendants/respondents informed the Court that the Sale Deed is not in their custody and the Digboi Police had also reported to the Court that the Sale Deed which is an important document is at present annexed with the record of FR No. 249/2021 in the Court of the SDJM, Margherita. 4. It is averred that the order of the learned Court of Munsiff that calling of records might lead to undue delay and disrupt the proceedings of the case is not tenable in the eye of law. 5. The certified copy as directed by the Court to be produced as evidence is not sufficient to prove the execution of Sale Deed. The signatures in the Sale Deed are required to be proved. It is further averred that in a casual manner, the impugned order was passed. 6. I have considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and I have also scrutinized the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 in connection with Title Suit No. 40/2021. The order clearly reflects that the defendants also have no objection if the record of FR Case No. 249/2021 is produced to prove the Sale Deed which is a part of the record. 7. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no bar for calling the record and later sending it back to the Court after proving the Sale Deed. 8. I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereby,
Page No.# 4/4 the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Court of Munsiff, Marghertia in connection with Title Suit No. 40/2021 is set aside. The learned Munsiff, Marghertia is thereby directed to consider the petition afresh and pass necessary orders. 9. The interim order dated 18.11.2022 passed by this Court by which further proceedings of Title Suit No. 40/2021 is stayed, stands vacated accordingly. 10.
In terms of the above observation, this instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant