Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020001662024 2026:GAU-NL:189 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/53/2024 M/S J.A. BROTHERS A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY SHRI JAMES AKHRAM HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT JINENDER TOWER OLD DAILY MARKET DIMAPUR-797112 VERSUS ALLAHABAD BANK AND ANR DIMAPUR BRANCH REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK, KALI BARI ROAD DIMAPUR 797112- NAGALAND 2:ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER EPIL BLOCK-A 4TH FLOOR HINDUSTAN TOWER JAWAHAR NAGAR BELTOLA GUWAHATI-78102 Advocate for the Petitioner : PRAVIR CHOWDHURY, V ANNE THERIE Advocate for the Respondent : S. TEMJEN, TEMSU JAMIR,TOSHITEMJEN PONGENER Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 26.03.2026 Heard Mr. Pravir Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. S. Temjen, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. 2. The present application have been filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Order dated 13.11.2023 passed in I.A.(Civil)/169/2023 whereby the said application was rejected. 3. From a perusal of the said application filed by the Petitioner before the learned Trial Court it appears that the Petitioner as Plaintiff have sought for direction upon the Defendant No. 1 to produce documents pertaining to encashments of four Bank Guarantees in favour of the Defendant No. 2 for the period from 20.03.2018 to 02.11.2018 and exhibit the same before the learned Trial Court. Further to that, the Plaintiff also sought for direction upon the Defendant No. 1 to furnish the particulars of the documents and materials pertaining to four Conditional Bank Guarantees in favour of the Defendant No. 2 by the Defendant No. 1 during the period from 20.03.2018 to 02.11.2018 available with the Defendant No. 1. 4. To the said application, the Defendant No. 1 had filed objections stating inter alia that the documents which the Plaintiff have sought for is Page No.# 3/4 completely vague. 5. Before dealing with the impugned Order it is relevant to take note of the Suit filed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed the Suit for recovery of certain amounts. It is the case of the Plaintiff in the Suit that the Defendant No. 1 permitted the Proforma Defendant to encash four Conditional Bank Guarantees valued at Rs. 6,04,40,057/- (Rupees Six Crore Four Lakhs Forty Thousand and Fifty Seven). The Bank Guarantees were encashed on 22.03.2017. Subsequent thereto, it is the case of the Plaintiff that additional demands were made in the form of penalty and interest which the Plaintiff accrued on 31.10.2017. 6. The case of the Plaintiff as would appear from the application that they sought for discovery of documents in respect to encashment of Bank Guarantee and penalty and interest imposed by the Defendant No. 1 Bank for the period 22.03.2018 to 02.11.2018. 7. The Defendant No. 1 Bank stated in the objection that such discovery is completely vague as the penalty and interest was imposed during the period from 22.03.2017 and payment made on or before 02.11.2017. 8. The learned Trial Court, vide the impugned Order categorically observed that the documents which have been sought for by the plaintiff to be produced by the Defendant No. 1 pertains to certain correspondence that took place between the Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 leading to the encashing of four Conditional Bank Guarantees for the period which was not an issue before the learned Trial Court and as such the same Page No.# 4/4 were not relevant to the matters between the parties in the instant case. The application filed by the Petitioner accordingly rejected. 9. This Court having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and having perused the materials on record do not find the Order dated 13.11.2023 impugned in the instant proceedings is of such a nature wherein the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to be exercised. It is also the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the Petitioner was trying to make as roving enquiry. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 10. This Court directs the parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 27.04.2026 for further continuation of such proceedings. JUDGE Comparing Assistant