Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010112382026 2026:GAU-AS:8934 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/221/2026 SMTI REKHA BORA AND 3 ORS WIFE OF LATE RIDIP BORA, 2: SRI SWABHILASH BORA SON OF LATE RIDIP BORA 3: SRI SIMANTA BORA SON OF LATE LAKHESWAR BORA 4: SRI BIJIT BORA SON OF LATE LAKHESWAR BORA ALL ARE RESIDENT OF RAJABAHAR GAON NEAR DKD COLLEGE PO-DERGAON DISTRICTGOALGHAT ASSAM PIN-78561 VERSUS SRI BIREN BORUAH AND 6 ORS SON OF LATE KALINATH BORUAH, RESIDENT OF CHOKIAL GOAN, WARD NO.4, DERGAON TOWN, PODERGAON, DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785614. 2:SRI HERAMBA BORA SON OF LATE KALINATH BORUAH RESIDENT OF CHOKIAL GOAN WARD NO.3 DERGAON TOWN PODERGAON DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT Page No.# 2/5 ASSAM PIN785614 3:SRI TAPAN BORUAH SON OF LATE MAHEN BORUAH RESIDENT OF CHOKIAL GOAN WARD NO.4 DERGAON TOWN PO-DERGAON DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785614. 4:SRI NAYANMONI BORUAH SON OF LATE MAHEN BORUAH RESIDENT OF KAMARCHUK GOAN WARD NO.8 DERGAON TOWN PO-DERGAON DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785614. 5:SRI DEBAJIT BORUAH SON OF LATE NOREN BORUAH RESIDENT OF CHOKIALCHUK WARD NO.3 DERGAON TOWN PO-DERGAON DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785614 6:SMTI MAMANI BORUAH WIFE OF LATE NOREN BORUAH RESIDENT OF CHOKIALCHUK WARD NO.3 DERGAON TOWN PO-DERGAON DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785614 7:SMTI ARATI BORUAH WIFE OF LATE HIREN BORUAH RESIDENT OF CHOKIALCHUK WARD NO.3 DERGAON TOWN Page No.# 3/5 PO-DERGAON DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785614 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DEKA, MS. A KHARBANI,MR. R K SARMA,MR J DAS,MR T CHAKRABORTY,MR. D CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M DUTTA(R1,3TO7), D KHERKATARY(R1,3TO7) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA O R D E R 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners impugning the order dated 15.05.2026, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Golaghat in Title Suit No.05/2020, whereby a petition filed by the present petitioners raising objection as regards the admissibility of certain documents which were not annexed along with the plaint at the time of filing of the plaint neither any leave of the Court was sought for to produce those documents by the plaintiffs were allowed to be exhibited by official witnesses of the plaintiff namely Sri Suraj Borah and one Sri Indrakanta Doley, was rejected. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that though in the petition filed by the present petitioners under Order-XIII, Rule-3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Numbered as Petition No.563/2026), praying for rejecting certain documents which were exhibited by the aforementioned official witnesses, have not clearly indicated the documents against which such Page No.# 4/5 objection has been raised, however, he submits that it is apparent that any documents which was not mentioned in the list of documents filed by the plaintiff would come in the purview of the objection raised by the present petitioners. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has already by making such an observation, debarred the petitioners from raising objections as regards admissibility at a later stage and it would greatly prejudice the present petitioners, as the cross-examination of the witnesses, who have exhibited the unlisted documents, is yet to be completed. He, therefore, submits that a direction may be given by this Court that the observation made in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order may not have any bearing at the time of deciding the admissibility of the documents questioned by the present petitioners during cross-examination. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents has also fairly submitted that the official witnesses have exhibited certain documents, which were not originally mentioned in the plaint or list of documents. However, he further submits that the plaintiff is not precluded from filing an application under Order-VII, Rule 14(3) of the CPC at a belated stage. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Kumar Sharma –vs- Lalit Kumar Sharma and another, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 612. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submission. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Trial Court has kept open the question regarding admissibility of documents Page No.# 5/5 against which objection has been raised by the present petitioners, to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. However, I find logic in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if same is to be done, then the observations made by the learned Trial Court in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order must not have a bearing on such determination. 7. As such, this Court directs that the observations made by the learned Trial Court in paragraph No.9 of the impugned order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Golaghat, in Title Suit No.05/2020 shall not have any bearing on the final adjudication regarding the question of admissibility of the documents which the petitioners are challenging. The petitioners are also at liberty to raise the said objection during the cross-examination of the official witnesses. On the other hand, if any application under Order-VII Rule-14(3) of the CPC is filed by the plaintiffs/respondents before the learned Trial Court, the same shall be considered by the learned Trial Court on its own merit. With the above observations and direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant