Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010279142025 2026:GAU-AS:5436 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/535/2025 BIJAN KUMAR SARKAR S/O LATE DINESH CHANDRA SARKAR, C/O SHANKU MEDICAL STORE, AMTAL, WARD NO. 4, P.O.- BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM - 781315 VERSUS GITA DAS AND 3 ORS. W/O LATE TRAILOKYA KR DAS, RESIDENT OF FATAHATI, WARD NO. 7, P.O.- BARPETA TOWN, DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM - 781301 2:SAPTADEEPA DAS D/O LATE TRAILOKYA KR DAS RESIDENT OF FATAHATI WARD NO. 7 P.O.- BARPETA TOWN DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM - 781301 3:HIMANGHA DAS S/O LATE TRAILOKYA KR DAS RESIDENT OF FATAHATI WARD NO. 7 P.O.- BARPETA TOWN DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM - 781301 4:TANMAY DAS S/O LATE TRAILOKYA KR DAS RESIDENT OF FATAHATI WARD NO. 7 P.O.- BARPETA TOWN Page No.# 2/5 DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM - 78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. R GHOSH,MS. N PODDAR,MR. C SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR A BANERJEE(R-1,2,3,4), MR. A BISWAS(R-1,2,3,4),MR P K BASU(R-1,2,3,4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 20.04.2026 Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 99/2018. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 28.11.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Barpeta (‘trial Court’, for short) had dismissed the petition No. 2932/25, filed by the petitioner to call for the records of NJ cases to establish the factum of deposit of rent in the Court, by holding that no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties, if the case records of the Misc. (NJ) cases, accumulated over the past decade, relating to deposit of rent, are not exhibited one by one along with the evidence of the defendant, and further holding that rather if need arises, the same can be called for and taken judicial notice at the time of argument. 4. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Page No.# 3/5 predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, as plaintiff, had instituted Title Suit No. 99/2018, for eviction of the present petitioner, who was a tenant, on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement, and also for recovery of arrear rent. The petitioner herein had contested by the said suit on the ground of defaulter and also on the ground of bona fide requirement. Mr. Poddar also submits that in the said suit, after cross-examination of the private witnesses for the defendant, summon was issued to the Court staff for production of Misc. (NJ) case records, to prove of regular deposit of rent, but on receipt of summon, the concerned staff (JAO), though appeared in the Court, had failed to produce the records on that day. Mr. Poddar submits that thereafter, a petition was filed for re-fixing the date, but on the objection filed by the respondents herein, the said petition was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 28.11.2025. Mr. Poddar further submits that after examination of the present petitioner as D.W. also, the petitioner had deposited the rent in the Court even after his cross-examination and the said record of NJ cases are required to be exhibited before the Court by examining the official witness, and unless such an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to examine the official witness, so as to exhibit the NJ case records, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in the event of passing a decree for recovery of arrears of rent. Mr. Poddar also submits that in the event of failing to produce the NJ case records by the official witness, production of NJ case Register will also serve the purpose. And under such circumstances, Mr. Poddar submits that the finding so recorded by the learned trial Court that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same is required to be interfered with and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition. Page No.# 4/5 5. On the other hand, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition. According to him, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or irregularity requiring any interference of this Court in view of the fact that the certified copies of the NJ case records have already been exhibited in the Court and it is nobody’s case that the petitioner herein had not deposited the rent in the Court. Mr. Biswas, by referring to the impugned order, has also pointed out that the learned trial Court has also recorded a finding that if necessity arises, then the Court may call for and take judicial notice of the NJ case records, at the time of argument. However, Mr. Biswas submits that he has no objection in the event of directing the learned trial Court to call for the Register of NJ cases and to exhibit the same instead of the NJ case records by calling the official witness in a time bound manner. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 28.11.2025. 7. Since herein this case, the certified copies of the NJ case records have already been exhibited and since it is nobody’s case that the petitioner has not deposited the rent before the Court, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 28.11.2025, suffers from no irregularity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court. 8. However, the apprehension of Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner, can adequately be taken care of, if the learned trial Court is directed to call for the NJ case Register instead of the records, and to ascertain deposit of rent, made by the petitioner, after his cross-examination Page No.# 5/5 in the Court, before pronouncement of the judgment. 9. Accordingly, it is provided that the learned trial Court shall call for the Register of NJ cases to ascertain deposit of rent by the petitioner after his cross-examination, before the pronouncement of the judgment. 10. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant