Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010001032016 2025:GAU-AS:1548 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/33/2025 ATUL CHANDRA DAS and 6 ORS ASSAM 2: ANUKUL DAS 3: JAYANTA DAS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE THE S/O- SRI ALOK DAS AND 3 IS THE SON OF LT. GUNAMONI DAS ALL ARE R/O VILL.- DIGHARUPAR P.S. - SONAPUR P.O.- DIGHARU PIN- 782101 DIST.- KAMRUP M ASSAM. 4: KALPANA DAS W/O- LT. ATUL DAS R/O- PANDABASTI LANKA P.O. and P.S.- LANKA DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM. 5: NISI DAS 6: JOYANTI DAS W/O- LT. NIKHIL DAS 7: NIPUL DAS NO. 4 TO 7 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LT. RAJEN RAM DAS NO. 5 TO 7 ARE THE R/O VILL.- DIGHARUPAR P.S.- SONAPUR Page No.# 2/3 P.O.- DIGHARU PIN- 782401 DIST.- KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS SMTI. CHAYA RANI DAS and 3 ORS ASSAM 2:RATAN MONI DAS 3:LILA MANI DAS 4:BULU MANI DAS NO. 1 IS THE WIFE AND NO. 2 TO 4 ARE THE SONS OF LT. CHINTAMANI DAS ALL ARE R/O VILL.- DIGHARU P.O.- DIGHARU P.S.- SONAPUR PIN- 782401 DIST.- KAMRUP M ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : None appears For the Respondent(s) : None appears BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 14.02.2025 None appears on behalf of the petitioners on call. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging an order dated 02.01.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M) in Title Suit No. 274/2012. Page No.# 3/3 3. A perusal of the said order reveals that the learned Trial Court taking into account the stand of the plaintiff that the signatures appearing in Exhibit 3 are not that of Shri Chintamoni Das and for the purpose thereof, had issued a commission in terms with Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for an expert opinion, as to whether, the signatures appearing in Exhibit 3 are the same as that appearing in the certificate dated 29.10.1956, certificate dated 17.09.1965 and the certificate dated 01.10.1952. 4. This Court taking into account the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court does not find that there is any error in exercise of such jurisdiction. Consequently, entertaining the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not arise, for which, the instant petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant