Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010052742024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/104/2024 DEBEN CH. DEKA S/O- LATE BATIRAM TELI, R/O- WARD NO. 7, BARUAPARA, MANGALDAI, P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS NIRMAL DEKA AND 4 ORS. S/O- LATE SANDIRAM DEKA, R/O- WARD NO. 4, TELIPARA CHOWK, BARUAPARA, MANGALDAI TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784148. 2:UMESH DEKA S/O- LATE SANDIRAM DEKA R/O- WARD NO. 4 TELIPARA CHOWK BARUAPARA MANGALDAI TOWN P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784148. 3:SARU DEKA S/O- LATE SANDIRAM DEKA R/O- WARD NO. 4 TELIPARA CHOWK BARUAPARA MANGALDAI TOWN P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784148. Page No.# 2/7 4:KHIROD DEKA S/O- LATE SANDIRAM DEKA R/O- WARD NO. 4 TELIPARA CHOWK BARUAPARA MANGALDAI TOWN P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784148. 5:MOHAN DEKA S/O- LATE SANDIRAM DEKA R/O- WARD NO. 4 TELIPARA CHOWK BARUAPARA MANGALDAI TOWN P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDAI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784148 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D A KAIYUM, MR. M S MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : MR C GOSWAMI (r-1 to 5), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 06.08.2025 Heard Mr. D.A. Kaioyom, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.11.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldai, in petition No. 677/2023, arising out of Title Suit No. 34/2017. Page No.# 3/7 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 09.11.2023, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Darrang, Mangaldai (‘Trial Court’, for short) had modified the order dated 17.05.2023, passed in petition No. 662/2023, and rejected that petition and thereby denied comparing of photocopies of the exhibits, with the original documents and held that marking of original documents as exhibits on 17.05.2023, cannot be considered with respect to the evidence of P.W.1. 4. Mr. Kaioyom, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as plaintiff had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 34/2017, for declaration of right, title, interest and for declaration that insertion of the name of deceased father of the defendants in revenue record is illegal, and for recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of Schedule-‘C’ land of the plaint. Mr. Kaioyom also submits that along with the suit, the petitioner had filed photocopies of the original documents and thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition, No. 361/2023, to allow him to compare the photocopies with the original documents and mark the same as exhibits, and thereafter, the learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 11.04.2023, was pleased to allow the said prayer. Mr. Kaioyom further submits that thereafter, the petitioner due to oversight and mistake, again filed petition No. 662/2023, with the same prayer and the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 17.05.2023, was pleased to allow the prayer to compare photocopies with original documents and to mark them as exhibits. And thereafter, the respondents/defendants had filed petition No. 677/2023, with a prayer not to accept the original documents, which were not filed earlier before cross-examination of P.W.1 or at the time of filing documents, and the petitioner also filed his reply to said objection. Mr. Kaioyom also submits that thereafter, the learned Trial Court, vide impugned Page No.# 4/7 order dated 09.11.2023, had observed that comparing and marking of original documents as exhibits were completely beyond procedure as the same was done behind the back of the respondents/defendants and after discharge of the witness and as such, the same cannot be accepted, and accordingly, modified the order dated 17.05.2023, to some extent and rejected the petition No. 662/2023, by holding that marking of original documents, as exhibits on 17.05.2023, cannot be considered with respect to the evidence of P.W.1 and reverted the suit back to the stage of cross-examination. 4.1. Mr. Kaioyom further submits that Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Order 13 Rule 1 CPC provides that the Court can accept documents filed by the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit, even if such document were not filed earlier, for the ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Goswami submits that the petitioner has been already cross-examined and if he is allowed to compare the photocopies with the original documents, then he has to be cross-examined again on that point and this will tantamount to allowing the petitioner to fill up the lacuna, and it will cause prejudice to the respondents, and under such circumstances, Mr. Goswami has contended to dismiss this petition. 5.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Goswami has referred to the following decisions: (i) Madan Gopal Kanodia vs. Mamraj Maniram and Ors., reported in (1977) 1 SCC 669. (ii) Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. and Ors. vs. Saikia and Associates, reported in 2009 (1) GLT 151. Page No.# 5/7 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. The petitioner had filed photocopies of the original documents along with the plaint of the title suit and he had filed a petition, No. 361/2023, to allow him to compare the photocopies with the original documents and mark the same as exhibits, and the same was allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 11.04.2023. However, due to oversight, the petitioner again filed petition No. 662/2023, and the same was also allowed, vide order dated 17.05.2023. Thereafter, on a petition filed by the respondents herein, being petition No. 677/2023, the learned Trial Court had modified the order dated 17.05.2023, and rejected the petition No. 662/2023. It is also not in dispute that cross-examination of the petitioner herein, as P.W.1, has already been completed. 8. It appears that cross-examination of P.W.1 has already been completed without comparing the photocopies of the documents filed earlier, with that of original documents and without marking the said documents as exhibits. And unless the photocopies were compared with that of original documents, the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice. 9. Mr. Kaioyom, learned counsel for the petitioner submits with vehemence that due to inadvertence, the documents could not be marked and for that, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer, and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, and even if cross-examination of the petitioner i.e. P.W.1 was completed, he can be recalled. Page No.# 6/7 10. There appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Kaioyom, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that for the first time the documents were sought to be exhibited. Indisputably, the documents were submitted with that of the plaint. The learned Trial Court had also allowed the petition filed by the petitioner earlier. Despite, due to inadvertence the same could not be compared with that of the original documents. 11. It is to be noted here that fair trial is a fundamental right of the parties and in fair trial, fair opportunities have to be afforded to the parties to establish their case by adducing evidence, documentary or oral, and denial of fair opportunities to establish their case amounts to denial of right to fair trial. If the petitioner is not allowed to compare the documents with that of the original one, then it would amount to denial of fair trial. 12. Though the cross-examination of the P.W.1 is completed, yet if necessary, after marking the original documents as exhibits comparing with the photocopies, the petitioner being P.W.1 may be recalled for cross-examination by the respondents, if so desired. 13. Thus, having examined the impugned order, in the light of given facts and circumstances on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the same, failed to withstand the legal scrutiny and as such, the same warrants interference of this Court. 14. I have also carefully gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. There is no quarrel at the Bar about the propositions of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases. But in the given facts and circumstances, and also for the reasons discussed herein above, this Court is of the view that the decisions referred by Mr. Goswami would not come into Page No.# 7/7 his assistance. 15. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The impugned order dated 09.11.2023, stands set aside and quashed. 16. Consequent upon, the learned Trial Court shall allow the petitioner to compare the original documents with the photocopies pursuant to its order dated 11.04.2023, and thereafter, it shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. And, if after comparing the original documents with the photocopies and marking the same as exhibits, the respondents herein, desire to cross- examine the petitioner, in respect of the documents, then the learned Trial Court shall afford such an opportunity to them. 17. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant