Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010108412026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/213/2026 HIMANGSHU PATOWARY SON OF LATE SANTIRAM PATOWARY, RESIDENT OF BAPUJI NAGAR, P.O- SARTHEBARI, DISTRICT - BARPETA ASSAM, PIN NO -781307 VERSUS SMTI ARATI TALUKDAR AND 3 ORS. DAUGHTER OF LATE BASHANTA KUMAR TALUKDAR, RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT), KASTURBA ASHRAM, SOUTH SARANIA, P.O.- ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781007 2:SMTI NIBHA TALUKDAR DAUGHTER OF LATE BASHANTA KUMAR TALUKDAR RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT) KASTURBA ASHRAM SOUTH SARANIA P.O.- ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781007 3:SMTI HIRAMONI TALUKDAR DAUGHTER OF LATE BASHANTA KUMAR TALUKDAR RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT) KASTURBA ASHRAM SOUTH SARANIA P.O.- ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781007 4:KASHYAP MEDHI Page No.# 2/4 SON OF NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT) KASTURBA ASHRAM SOUTH SARANIA P.O.- ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 08.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 02.04.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 5/2015, whereby the prayer for furnishing copies of bank account which was found missing in the bunch of documents furnished to the defendant side by the plaintiff side after the direction of the trial court was rejected and the suit was fixed for evidence of PWs/hearing of Petition No. 83/26 filed by the plaintiff side. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially when the defendant received the copy of the plaint, he was not furnished with the documents which were annexed along with the plaint and the trial court directed the plaintiff to furnish the same to the defendant. Thereafter, on Page No.# 3/4 subsequent four occasions, the plaintiff failed to comply with the directions of the trial court in furnishing the documents which were annexed in the plaintiff. He further submits that ultimately on 06.01.2026, some copies of documents were furnished to the present petitioner by the plaintiff side and the particulars of the documents annexed were indicated that the bunch of said documents furnished to the present petitioner contained a copy of will, bank account, photocopy of medical document of GMCH, a photo of a house built by the plaintiff's sister, photocopy of documents of different hospitals, photo of opposite party living with his new wife. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though on 6th January, 2026, the present petitioner received the said documents, however, later on he found that the copies of bank account mentioned in the list of exhibits has not been furnished to the present petitioner and accordingly on the next date fixed i.e., on 02.04.2026, this fact was brought to the notice of the trial court by filing an application by the present petitioner i.e., it was registered as petition No. 1880/2026 requesting the trial court to direct the plaintiff to furnish the aforementioned documents (copies of bank account). However, the trial court by the impugned order had rejected the said prayer and also closed the opportunity of filing written statement by the defendant (present petitioner). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner would be highly prejudiced if his right to file written statement is foreclosed by the trial court without furnishing all the documents which were relied upon by the plaintiff in his plaint. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 02.04.2026, it appears that though the trial court had observed therein that on 06.01.2026, the copies of documents were furnished to the present petitioner, however, there is no categorical finding as regards the point which was brought to the notice of the trial court regarding non-furnishing of the copies of bank accounts. The trial court did not came to a finding in the impugned order that in spite of receiving the bank accounts which he claims to not have received no written statement has been filed, it proceeded to fix the case for hearing on the next day. 8. Since the next date of the suit is fixed tomorrow, i.e., on 09.06.2026, this court is of considered opinion that issuance of notice at this stage would unnecessarily cause further delay to already delayed trial in the aforesaid case. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as considering the facts that there is no categorical observation in the impugned order regarding receipt of copies of bank account by the present petitioner as well as considering other attending circumstances of this case, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish the copies of bank account which is relied upon by them to the present petitioner and thereafter the trial court may fix a short date for filing written statement by the present petitioner. 10. With the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant