Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010274792025 2026:GAU-AS:5548 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/516/2025 SRI SATYADIP SAIKIA S/O LATE HARESWAR SAIKIA R/O BHIMPARA P.S. DIST. TINSUKIA PIN- 786125 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.10 SAMANAY PATH, FARM GATE, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI -781022 VERSUS SMT GAYATRI DEVI WIFE OF SRI PURUSHOTAM MODI R/O KHAGESWAR ROAD, TINSUKIA P.O. , P.S. DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM PIN-786125 2:SRI DAMODAR SHARMA S/O LATE SATYA NARAYAN SHARMAR/O MANAV KALYAN ROAD P.O. DIST. TINSUKIAPIN-786125 3:SRI SUNIL DAS S/O LATE RAJKUMAR DASR/O TAMULBARIP.O. P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIAPIN-786125 4:SRI SUBRATA CHAKRABORTY S/O LATE NANI GOPAL CHAKRABORTYRESIDENT OF D.M LOHIA ROADP.O. P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIATINSUKIA ASSAMPIN-786125 5:SRI AASHRAY DADICH S/O SRI RAMESH SHARMAR/O RAILWAY COLONYP.O. P.S. DISTRICT- TINSUKIAPIN-786125 6:SRI SIDDHARTHA THARD S/O SRI KISHORILAL THARDR/O INDER MANSION1ST FLOOR A.T. ROADP.O. P.S. DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAMPIN-78612 Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D KALITA, MS R KOUR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. SAILENDRA DEKA (R-1 TO 6), MS L RONGPIPI(R-1 TO 6) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 22.04.2026 Heard Mr. D. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.08.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Tinsukia (trial court hereinafter), in Petition No. 875/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 12/2023. 3. The lis between the parties, that has been carried to this Court, lies in a very narrow compass. 4. The petitioner herein is the defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 12/2023, pending before the learned trial court. The said title suit was instituted by the respondents herein for declaration of right, title and interest over a plot of land described in the schedule of the plaint and also for other consequential relief(s). 4.1. During the course of trial of Title Suit No. 12/2023, the petitioner herein had filed one petition, being petition No. 875/2024, under Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC, for calling the records of Case No. 91/2022 (disposed of) from the court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Tinsukia and Title Suit No. 18/2016 (disposed of) and Misc. (J) Case No. 26/2016 (disposed of) from the court of Page No.# 3/5 learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Tinsukia, as the said records are connected with the Title Suit No. 12/2023 and have some bearing upon the same. 4.2. Thereafter, the learned trial court having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the objection filed by the respondents herein, dismissed the petition No. 875/2024, on the ground that calling the entire records would be a futile exercise as the plaintiffs have themselves admitted the veracity of the said documents, certified copies of which were submitted at the time of filing of written statement. The learned trial court further held that these documents being a part of court proceeding are public documents, within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the petitioner herein has failed to satisfy the court as to why the calling of the entire records are necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. 4.3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the aforementioned finding, so recorded by the learned trial court, in the impugned order dated 02.08.2025. 5. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the records, which are required to be called for, have some bearing upon the Title Suit No. 12/2023 and that the petitioner has to prove the documents of the said case records to substantiate his stand as defendant in the said title suit. Mr. Kalita further submits that the finding, so recorded by the learned trial court, that the documents, which are required to be called for, are public documents, is grossly incorrect and as such, he has contended to interfere with the said order, dated 02.08.2025 and also to direct the learned trial court to call for the records. 5.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Kalita has referred to a decision of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Gulab Chand vs. Sheo Karan Lall Seth, reported in 1964 AIR(Pat) 45. Page No.# 4/5 6. Per-contra, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, have admitted the veracity of the documents and as such, the records are not required to be called for and that said facts is mentioned in Rule 106 of the Civil Court Rules and Orders of the Gauhati High Court and also under Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC. 6.1. Mr. Dutta further submits that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, in respect of the petition, no reason has been assigned and that the written objection filed by the respondents herein has not also been enclosed with the present petition. Mr. Dutta also submits that the documents of a court proceeding are public documents and under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 02.08.2025, passed by the learned trial court, suffers from no illegality or impropriety, requiring any interference of this Court and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also gone through the impugned order, dated 02.08.2025, passed by the learned trial court and also perused the petition No. 875/2024, filed by the petitioner herein, under Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC. 8. It appears that the petitioner herein had explained in the said petition with a supporting affidavit as to why the records are required to be called for. In view of the reasons, so assigned by the petitioner in the aforesaid petition, supported by an affidavit, this Court is unable to agree with the finding of the learned trial court that calling for the records would be a futile exercise. 9. It is to be noted here that right to fair trial is a fundamental right and in a fair trial, fair opportunity is required to be given to both the parties, to prove their respective cases. Page No.# 5/5 10. In the instant case, if the records are required to establish the case of the petitioner herein, before the learned trial court and if the same would not cause any prejudice to the other parties and also the same would not cause any delay in the proceeding, then this Court is of the view that interest of justice will subserve if this petition is allowed. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.08.2025, passed by the learned trial court stands set aside and quashed. Consequently, the learned trial court shall call for the records, so mentioned in the petition, dated 28.08.2024 and thereafter, to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 12. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant