Item- A- 796. sg 15-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 417 of 2026 Sashadhar Ghosh @ Shashadhar Ghosh Versus Palash Ghosh & Ors. [ Mr. Surya Prasad Chattoapdhyay …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being No. 31 dated 12th November, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 3rd Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in Title Suit No. 294 of 2022. By the order impugned, the evidence of the defendant was closed and the case was adjourned for 3 weeks to enable the petitioner to take steps. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought for two months’ time to move the High Court for a direction upon the UIDAI authorities for disclosure of information. He submits that immediately thereafter, a writ petition was filed, which is still pending. He further submits that in order to verify the identity of Sanaka Ghosh (Sarkar) and to verify the Aadhar details in 3 forged deeds a direction upon the authorities to disclose the information should be passed. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the summons being served, one Apurva Mohan appeared before the court and adduced evidence by way of examination-in-chief. He submits that Mr. Mohan submitted that he cannot produce the identity document of the person from the office without comply with Section 33 of the relevant statute. 2 Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that Section 33 of the AADHAAR Act does not create any embargo upon the authorities to supply the information. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the materials placed. The opposite party filed a suit for partition. In the plaint, it has been stated that the suit property which consists of two plots previously belonged to Sashadhar Ghosh, Sukumar Ghosh and Sushanta Ghosh. The said Sushanta Ghosh died leaving behind his wife Sanaka Ghosh and a son Rana Ghosh as his legal heirs and successors who inherited the share of said Sushanta Ghosh to the extent of 8 annas. Mr. Chattopadhyay submits that Sushanta executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the said Will, the petitioner have acquired right, title and interest in respect of the property in question. He submits that in order to prove that the deeds executed by Smt. Sanaka and Rana Ghosh are forged and manufactured one, Aadhaar information is necessary. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of Section 33 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. Section 33 of the said Act states that “nothing contained in sub-section (2) or sub- section (5) of section 28 or sub-section (2) of section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made pursuant to an order of a court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court.” The proviso thereto states that, no order by the court under this sub-section shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Authority and the concerned 3 Aadhaar number holder. Second proviso thereto states that, the core biometric information shall not be disclosed under this sub-section. On bare reading of the provisions of Section 33 of the said Act, it is crystal clear that an order can be passed by the Judge of a court not inferior to that of a High Court without giving any opportunity of hearing to the authority and the concerned Aadhaar number holder. It is the duty of a litigant to prove his case by adducing evidence in support of his case. Burden lies upon the petitioner to prove that the deeds in question are forged and manufactured. Party to a suit cannot use the Court as a weapon to assist him for collecting evidence. High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution wherein an interlocutory order has been challenged has to test the propriety of the impugned order. Such power of superintendence cannot be stretched that far for collecting evidence in favour of a party by passing a direction under Section 33 of the Aadhar Act, 2016. The scope and ambit of this proceeding cannot be enlarged to decide an issue whether the authority under the said Act should disclose an information or not. To the mind of this Court, the learned trial judge is right in closing the evidence of the defendant. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This civil revision application stands dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observation made hereinbefore, are only for the purpose of supporting the 4 ultimate conclusions arrived at this order and the same shall not prejudice the parties in pending writ petition. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)