Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010271752017 2026:GAU-AS:7777 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/322/2017 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. HUDCO A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION REGD UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT HUDCO BHAWAN, INDIA HABITAT CENTRE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110003 AND HAVING ITS GUWAHATI ZONAL OFFICE AT HOUSEFED COMPLEX, RUKIMINI GAON, G S ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781022 AND REP. BY THE REGIONAL CHIEF HUDCO, GUWAHATI VERSUS M/S. UPASANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. and 4 ORS. REP. BY SRI PRANJAL BHORALEE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2ND FLOOR, AARTI PLAZA, CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI- 781003 IN THE KAMRUP METRO DIST, ASSAM 2:ON THE DEATH OF PRANJAL KUMAR BHORALEE HIS LEGAL HEIRS 2.1:MS. UPASANA BHORALEE D/O LATE PRANJAL KUMAR BHORALEE 2ND FLOOR ARATI PLAZA CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 03 3:CHABBI BHORALEE W/O- SRI PRANJAL KUMAR BHORALEE DIRECTOR OF M/S UPASANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD 2ND FLOOR ARATI PLAZA CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003 Page No.# 2/7 RESIDING AT NIRUPAM APARTMENT NEAR ABC TARUN NAGAR GUWAHATI- 781006 KAMRUP METRO DIST ASSAM 4:ON THE DEATH OF ARUN BORAH HIS LEGAL HEIRS NA 4.1:AMIT BORAH S/O Late Arun Borah R/O Barowary Guwahati 781001 Dist. Kamrup (M) Assam 5:PALLAVI BORAH D/O- SRI ARUN BORAH R/O- BAROWARY GUWAHATI- 781001 DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.G BHARADWAJ, ABBASH U AHMED,MR. K BHATTACHARJEE,MR.A C SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P K KALITA (R-4.1,5), MR G J SAIKIA (R-5),MR. K R BOROOAH (R-4.1),MR. N DAS (R-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER 03.06.2026 Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also head Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5. There is no representation for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. Page No.# 3/7 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (DRT) in O.A. No. 56/2012, this application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. As per the provision of Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [formerly Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993], any person aggrieved by an order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal may prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction. Thus, appeal would lie against any order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whether interlocutory or final. Thus, there being alternative statutory remedy available, the petitioner is prima facie not entitled to any relief in this case. Nonetheless, in view of the nature of issue raised, the merit of the case has also been examined. 4. The petitioner in this application is the applicant in O.A. No. 56/2012, which is pending disposal before the DebtsRecovery Tribunal, Guwahati. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had raised an objection regarding forgery in creating security documents based on which a loan was availed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the extent of Rs.2.90 crore for construction of an apartment building known as “Gyanashram” at a location in Uzan Bazar, Guwahati. The said application was filed under Section 75, read with Order 26 Rule 10A of the CPC, read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act for verification of documents by handwriting /Forensic Expert. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 56/2012, all the original documents of the application by the petitioner corporation were submitted before the learned DRT. However, the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was based, amongst Page No.# 4/7 others, on 6 exhibited documents, being, (1) certified copy of Development Agreement bearing Deed No. 7394/2005 (Ext.A2), (2) certified copy of Power of Attorney, being Deed No. 4215 (Ext. A4), (3) Letter of Offer (Ext. A6), (4) Undertaking signed by the landowners (Ext.A9), (5) Loan Agreement dated 31.05.2005 (Ext.A10), and (6) 3rdAmendment to the Loan Agreement dated 10.04.2007 (Ext.A31). It is submitted that when the expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory was cross-examined, he was put a question as to the nature of documents exhibited and examined by him and the said authority had admitted that the two documents i.e. Ext.A2 and Ext.A4 which were examined by him were the certified copy of the Development Agreement (Ext.A2) and the Power of Attorney (Ext. A4). Accordingly, it is submitted that instead of sending the original documents, the learned DRT had sent certified copies, which cannot be said to bear the original signatures of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Accordingly, it is submitted that as the Forensic Science Laboratory had examined the certified copies, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory could not have been accepted by the learned DRT. Accordingly, in terms of the prayer made in this application, the petitioner, i.e., the Financial Institution, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2017, passed by the learned DRT in O.A. No. 56/2012, by which prayer made by the petitioner for passing appropriate orders that the Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 08.05.2017 was not applicable to Ext. Nos. A2, A4, A6, A9 and A10, was rejected. 6. Thus, as stated above, in view of the issue raised, the Court is of the considered opinion that as this revision petition is pending for disposal for nearly 9(nine) years, the merit of the challenge has been examined under the facts unique to this case, without intending this to be a precedent in any other case. Page No.# 5/7 7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the Court has perused the records called for from the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal. 8. The records reveal that the evidence on exhibit of the petitioner was sworn by one Songita Daas, the Senior Manager, Law, of the petitioner corporation filed on 17.07.2013. Amongst others, by way of the evidence-on- affidavit, 39 documents were exhibited. Out of the exhibited documents, Ext. A2 as stated in the evidence-on-affidavit is a “copy” of the Development Agreement No. 7394/2005 dated 17.06.2005. In respect of Ext. 4, it has been mentioned in the narration at paragraph 4 of the evidence-on-affidavit that Ext. 4A was a “copy” of Power of Attorney No. 4215/2005. It is also noticed that in the narration appended to paragraph 4 of the evidence on affidavit, the petitioner corporation had exhibited the signature of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Ext. A2(1) and Ext. A2(2) and A2(3) and the signature of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in Ext. 4 were exhibited as Ext. A4(1) and A4(2). Similarly, in respect of Ext. A6, in narration appended to paragraph 5 of the evidence-on-affidavit, it has been mentioned that the same is a “copy” of Letter Offer dated 08.04.2005 and the signatures of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were exhibited as Ext. A6(6) to A6(10) and Ext. A6(11) to A6(15). Similarly, in narration appended to paragraph 5 of the evidence-on-affidavit Ext.A9 is stated to be a “copy” of undertaking dated 30.08.2005 and the signatures of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were exhibited as Ext. A9(1) and A9(2) and Ext.A9(3) and A9(4) respectively. In relation to paragraph 6 of the evidence-on-affidavit, a reference to Ext. A10 is made which is again stated to be a “copy” of Loan Agreement dated 31.05.2005 and the signatures of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were exhibited as Ext. A10(122) to Ext.A10(152) and Ext.A10(153) to Ext.A10(184) respectively. In the narration Page No.# 6/7 appended to paragraph 12 of the evidence-on-affidavit, Ext.A31 has been mentioned as a copy of the 3rd Amendment to Loan Agreement dated 10.04.2017 and the signatures of respondent nos. 4 and 5 were exhibited as Ext. A31(3) and A31(4). 9. Thus, when in evidence-on-affidavit, those exhibits were referred to as “copy”, the Court is unable to accept the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the original application, being O.A. No.56/2012, the documents referable to Ext.A2, A4, A6, A9, A10 and A31 were filed in original. The reason is that if the documents were in original, there was no necessity for the deponent in the evidence-on-affidavit to refer those original documents as “copies”. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, the evidence-on-affidavit of PW-1 itself reflects that “copies” of said documents were exhibited and the learned Tribunal, upon passing of the relevant order, had forwarded the exhibited documents to the Forensic Expert. 10. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the exhibited documents which are enclosed with the report of the FSL, they are found to have been separated from the evidence-on-affidavit. The other exhibited documents remain appended to the evidence-on-affidavit. 11. In this case, the petitioner has not annexed to this application, the extract of the original Mortgage Register or the Memorandum of Mortgage, by whatever name called. The petitioner has also not produced photocopies of the so-called original exhibited documents submitted before the learned DRT. 12. Even assuming that this Court is to believe, what is projected by the petitioner corporation, it would mean that the learned DRT, despite receiving the original document Ext. A2, would create in its record “certified to be true copy” Page No.# 7/7 issued by the Senior Sub-Registrar Officer, Guwahati on 18.06.2005 and similarly also substitute the original Power of Attorney (Ext.A4) with a “certified to be true copy” procured from the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Guwahati, issued on 18.06.2005. The petitioner has to satisfy the Court that the document exhibited as Ext.A2 and Ext.A4 were in original. It may be stated that there is no dispute with regard to the referred documents being Ext.A6, Ext.A9, Ext.A10 and Ext.A31 which are in original. Therefore, the dispute is only with regard to the said exhibited documents. It is most unlikely that certified copies of the Deed of Agreement and Power of Attorney dated 17.06.2005 could have been substituted by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in lieu of original document, but that too, by certified copies of Ext.A2 and Ext.A4 issued on 18.06.2005. 13. Accordingly, the challenge to the impugned order dated 19.09.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, in O.A. No. 56/2012, fails and the application is accordingly dismissed. 14. The Registry shall send back the records to the learned DRT, Guwahati along with the copy of this order to be made a part of the record by the said learned Tribunal. 15. The interim order dated 01.11.2017 staying with the proceeding in O.A. Case No. 56/2012 stands revoked. 16. Both sides are directed to appear before the learned DRT, Guwahati on 22.06.2026 and by producing a certified copy of the order, await for further orders to be passed by the said learned Tribunal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant