CRP(I/O) 23/2015. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP(I/O) 23/2015 |
| Judgement Date | July 13, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRP ( I / O) 23 of 2015
With
CRP ( I / O) 121 of 2015
BI SWA RANJAN BANERJEE & 6 ORS. …..Petitioners
-Versus-SMT. KRI SHNA GHOSH & 2 ORS. …..Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
Advocates for the Petitioners : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate.
: Mr. S. Sahu, Mr. T.C. Khetri, Ms. A .Das, : Ms. P. Chakraboty, Ms. K. Khan,
: Mr. B. Choudhury, Ms. P. Bhattacharya,
: Ms. J. Das.
Advocates for the Respondents : Mr. A. Sattar, Ms. R. Hussain,
: Ms. S. Choudhury, Mr. H. Baruah, : Mr. Z. Mukit.
Date of hearing : 14.06.2017
Date of judgment and order : 13.07.2017
CRP (I/O) 121/2015 & CRP (I/O) 23/2015 Page 1 of
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( CAV)
Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2) The petitioners are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 608/ 2006. The suit, inter-alia,
was for declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land, for delivery of khas possession of the suit land, if necessary, by demolition the construction standing thereon, for declaring the Sale Deed No. 3371/ 1983 dated 11.05.1983 and Sale Deed No. 7447/ 1983 dated 30.09.1983 as null and void and to cancel the same, for cancellation of mutation of the name of the respondents/ defendants on the suit land and municipal holding, for permanent injunction, precept etc. I nitially the suit was being tried by the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1 and numbered as T.S. No. 416/ 2005. Later on, due to enlargement of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred for trial before the learned Court of Munsiff No. 2, Guwahati. The respondents contested the suit by filing their written statement cum counter-claim for declaring the right, title and interest of the defendant No. 1 over the land described in the Schedule of Deed No. 3371/ 1983 dated 11.05.1983. The petitioners had filed their written statement in respect of the said counter claim.
3) I n course of trial, the petitioners filed a petition under the provisions of Order
XVI Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC for short) to examine two witnesses whose names were not furnished before the court earlier. The said petition was numbered as petition No. 3616/ 14. The petitioners filed another petition, being petition No. 1475/ 15 under the provisions of Order XVI I I Rule 17 CPC to call the Sub- Registrar, Guwahati to depose before the Hon'ble court by producing the volume books and related index register, thumb impression register and all of the related documents, if any, in connection with Sale Deed No. 7447/ 1983 dated 30.09.1983 and Sale Deed No. 3371/ 1983 dated 11.05.1983. Both the said petitions were rejected by the learned trial court.
CRP (I/O) 121/2015 & CRP (I/O) 23/2015 Page 2 of
4) The petitioners have filed CRP (I / O) No. 23/ 2015 under Article 227 of the
Constitution of I ndia to challenge the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the learned court of Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in, by which the petition No. 3616/ 14 under Order XVI Rule 1 (3) CPC was rejected.
5) The petitioners have also filed CRP (I / O) No. 121/ 2015 under Article 227 of
the Constitution of I ndia to challenge the order dated 02.04.2015 passed by the learned trial court, thereby allowing secondary evidence to be led by the respondents for proving Sale Deed No. 3371 dated 11.05.1983 and Sale Deed No. 7447/ 83 dated 30.09.1983 and also in challenge is the order dated 18.09.2015, thereby rejecting petition No. 1475/ 15 of the petitioners.
6) Both the said revision applications have been heard together. Owing to the
nature of issue raised, it has been deemed fit to dispose of the said two revisions at the ‘admission stage’.
7) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in course of
hearing, the petitioners had filed Evidence-on- affidavit of six witnesses including the plaintiff No. 3. At the relevant point when petition No. 3616/ 14 under Order XVI Rule 1(3) read with section 151 CPC was filed, the defendants had cross-examined two witnesses including the plaintiff No. 3. I n the said petition it was stated that the petitioners had failed to mention the names of two witnesses, namely, (i) Sri Umakant Jha and (ii) Sri Gopal Jha, due to the lack of knowledge of their address at the relevant time. According to the petitioners, those two persons were vital witnesses because at the material time they were residing in a room standing over the suit land. But, they had left after the defendants had encroached over the suit land on 25.12.2004. The petitioners...
To continue reading
Request your trial