Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010203752025 2025:GAU-AS:15783 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/386/2025 SANCHITA ROY CHOWDHURY YOUNGER D/O- LATE AMAL KANTI ROY CHOWDHURY, R/O-H.NO- 40, CREEPER, PIYOLI PHUKAN ROAD, P.O- ULUBARI , GUWAHATI-07, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS TAPASHI SAHA AND 3 ORS. C/O- DR. BHOLANATH SAHA, 12/2A, THANA ROAD , GANARAJ CHOWMANI , NEAR JYOTSNA PETROL PUMP, BANAMALIPUR, AGARTALA-799001, DIST- WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA 2:SHAURAV SAHA C/O- DR. BHOLANATH SAHA 12/2A THANA ROAD GANARAJ CHOWMANI NEAR JYOTSNA PETROL PUMP BANAMALIPUR AGARTALA-799001 DIST- WEST TRIPURA TRIPURA 3:ANUSUYA SAHA C/O- DR. BHOLANATH SAHA 12/2A THANA ROAD GANARAJ CHOWMANI NEAR JYOTSNA PETROL PUMP BANAMALIPUR AGARTALA-799001 DIST- WEST TRIPURA Page No.# 2/5 TRIPURA 4:DR. RAUNAK SAHA C/O- DR. BHOLANATH SAHA 12/2A THANA ROAD GANARAJ CHOWMANI NEAR JYOTSNA PETROL PUMP BANAMALIPUR AGARTALA-799001 DIST- WEST TRIPURA TRIPUR Advocate for the Petitioner : PETITIONER IN PERSON, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ(AMICUS CURIAE) Advocate for the Respondent : MS N P DAS, MR. D C KALITA,MR. B K BHAGAWATI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 18.11.2025 1. Heard Ms. Sanchita Roy Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing in person as well as Mr. Sarfaraz Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this court to assist this court. Also heard Mr. B. K. Bhagawati, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner in person, Ms. Sanchita Roy Chowdhury who has filed the Probate Title Suit No.11/2024 (old Misc. Probate Case No. 27/2023) before the court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), presently, pending as Probate Title Suit No.11/2024. Page No.# 3/5 3. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 31.07.2025, by which the trial court has framed three issues as follows:- ISSUES “1. Whether the instant Probate Title Suit is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the document put forward as the last WILL and Testament dated 09 06.2003, of Late Amal Kanti Roy Chowdhury, was duly executed and attested in accordance with law? 3. Whether at the time of such execution, the testator had sound disposing mind? 4. Relief(s).” 4. She is mainly aggrieved on the fact that though in the draft issues submitted by parties some more issues were proposed and though contentions to that effect were also made in their respective pleadings, however, said issues were not framed. 5. The learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Sarfaraz Nawaz has fairly submitted that on perusal of the memorandum of issues dated 31.07.2025, in which issues framed by the trial court are reflected, it appears that necessary issues which are required for deciding a Probate Title Suit appear to have been framed. He, however, submits that even after that if the petitioner has some grievance, she may very well Page No.# 4/5 approach the trial court by filing an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for framing of the additional issues. It is only after she approaches the trial court and decision is made thereon, she might have a cause of action for approaching this court. 6. He further submits that the other grievance of the petitioner in person is that though as per Order 8 Rule 1A, it was incumbent upon the respondents to submit the documents, on which they were relying for their defence in the Probate Title Suit. However, they submitted no such documents and there is no reflection to that effect in the impugned order dated 31.07.2025. 7. He further fairly submits that since the order dated 31.07.2025, does not mention about any documents submitted by the defendant side, it is apparent that no such document submitted. He further submits that otherwise also, the law is such that now if the defendant intend to submit any document in their defence, they cannot do so without seeking leave of the court under Order 8, Rule 1 A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and objection to that effect may be made by the petitioner in the said Probate Title Suit. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, on the other hand, submits that revision petition under Article 227 is not maintainable in as much as by the impugned order, the trial court has framed all relevant issues. He submits that he agrees entirely with the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae. 9. The petitioner-in-person is also agreeable to the suggestions Page No.# 5/5 made by the learned Amicus Curiae. 10. In view of the submissions made above, this civil revision petition is disposed of with an observation that if the petitioner is aggrieved with non-framing of certain additional issues which she thinks were required to be framed, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, she may approach the trial court by filing an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if she desires to do so. Moreover, as apparently, no documents were filed by the respondent along with their written statement, they would be precluded from depositing any such document without the leave of the court in terms of the provisions under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in such a case, the petitioner shall have all right to object the admission of such documents. 11. With the above observations, this civil revision petition (IO) is disposed of. The stay order granted earlier stands vacated. 12. This court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Sarfaraz Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae in this case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant