Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010282222023 2025:GAU-AS:16465 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/428/2023 PRADIP KR BARUAH AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE BHOLA BARUAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MIRJAPUR (MEDHIPARA), P.O.- AZARA, P.S.- AZARA, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN), ASSAM. 2: SUBHASH BARUAH S/O- LATE BHOLA BARUAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MIRJAPUR (MEDHIPARA) P.O.- AZARA P.S.- AZARA DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN) ASSAM. 3: RATUL BARUAH S/O- LATE BHOLA BARUAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MIRJAPUR (MEDHIPARA) P.O.- AZARA P.S.- AZARA DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METROPOLITAN) ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS ANU DAS WIFE OF SRI AMULYA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAHIKUCHI, MILAN NAGAR, P.S.- AZARA, P.O. AZARA, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM PIN- 781015. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROY, MS. M DUTTA,MRS. A CHAKRABORTY,MR. S K CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D M NATH, MS. A MEDHI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 02.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Rahul, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.10.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati in Title Suit No.290/2018. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of a contract. When the parties entered into the agreement, the defendant kept one photo copy of the said agreement and the original agreement was taken away by the plaintiff. Now, the defendant says that the original agreement did not have the signatures of the witnesses and the four boundaries. According to the defendant, the signatures of the defendants of the four boundaries were subsequently written in the agreement. Therefore, the defendant wanted to exhibit the photo copy of the original agreement, Page No.# 3/3 which is in his possession. 4. In the meantime, the plaintiff has already exhibited the agreement for sale as Exhibit-A, now the defendant want to exhibit the photo copy of the original evidence, which is in his possession and this photo copy shows that the name of the witness and the four boundaries of the suit property are not mentioned therein. 5. The Trial Court refused to allow the defendant to exhibit the photo copy of the said original agreement as secondary evidence. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. 7. This Court is of the opinion that, if the defendant is allowed to exhibit the photo copy of the original agreement in his evidence, no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners. 8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.10.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati in Title Suit No.290/2018 is set aside. 9. The Trial Court is directed to provide opportunity to the defendant to exhibit the photo copy of the original sale deed as Exhibit No.1. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant