Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Sri Ghanashyam Choubey on 12 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010116132016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./96/2016
LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE GANGADHAR CHOUBEY, SMT. SARASWATI DEVI
and 9 ORS
W/O LATE GANGADHAR CHOUBEY, R/O VILL. BHUPATPUR, P.O.
KARWATIHI BAZAR, DIST. GOPALGANJ, BIHAR 841501
2: MANKESWAR NATH CHOUBEY
S/O LATE GANGADHAR CHOUBEY
R/O VILL. BHUPATPUR
P.O. KARWATIHI BAZAR
DIST. GOPALGANJ
BIHAR 841501
MOBILE 918757387251
3: SMT. GODAVARI DEVI
D/O LATE GANGADHAR COUBEY
W/O SRI RAMAYAN UPADHAYA
R/O VILL. BHUPATPUR
P.O. KARWATIHI BAZAR
DIST. GOPALGANJ
BIHAR 841501
4: LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE PURURSHOTTAM CHOUBEY
SMT. GIRIJA DEVI
W/O LATE PURURSHOTTAM COUBEY
R/O VILL. BHUPATHIPUR
P.O. KARWATIHI BAZAR
P.S. KUCHAIKOT
DIST. GOPALGANJ
BIHAR 841501
5: SMTI MANJU CHOUBEY
D/O LATE GANGADHAR CHOUBEY
W/O SRI RABINDRA PANDEY
Page No.# 2/5
R/O VILL. LAXMIPUR
P.O. LAXMIPUR
BUJUNG
P.S. PATHEROWA
DIST. KUSHI NAGAR
U.P.-274303
6: SMTI RANJU CHOUBEY
D/O LATE GANGADHAR COUBEY
R/O VILL. KARANPATTI
P.O. MADHOPUR
DIST. KUSHI NAGAR
U.P. 274406
7: SMT. SANGITA DEVI
W/O LATE BALESHWAR CHOUBEY
R/O VILL. BHUPATHIPUR
P.O. KARWATIHI BAZAR
P.S. KUCHAIKOT
DIST. GOPALGANJ
BIHAR 841501
8: ABHISHEK CHOUBEY
MINOR THROUGH B I ABOVE
S/O LATE BALESHWAR CHOUBEY
R/O VILL. BHUPATHIPUR
P.O. KARWATIHI BAZAR
P.S. KUCHAIKOT
DIST. GOPALGANJ
BIHAR 841501
9: MISS SWEETA KUMARI
D/O LATE BALESHWAR CHOUBEY
R/O VILL. BHUPATHIPUR
P.O. KARWATIHI BAZAR
P.S. KUCHAIKOT
DIST. GOPALGANJ
BIHAR-841501
10: MISS SALU KUMARI
MINOR THOUGH B I ABOVE
D/O LATE BALESHWAR CHOUBEY
R/O VILL. BHUPATHIPUR
P.O. KARWATIHI BAZAR
P.S. KUCHAIKOT
DIST. GOPALGANJ
BIHAR 84150
Page No.# 3/5
VERSUS
SRI GHANASHYAM CHOUBEY
S/O LATE MURLIDHAR CHOUBEY, R/O VILL. BHUPATHIPUR, P.O.
KARWATIHI BAZAR, P.S. KUCHAIKOT, DIT. GOPALGANJ, BIHAR 841501
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K SAHARIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.T R ROY
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 12.11.2021
None appears for the petitioner on call.
I have heard Mr. SP Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the sole respondent.
This application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 27.05.2016
passed in CRP(I/O) No.126/2015 passed by this Court. Vide the order
sought to be reviewed, the order dated 04.08.2015 passed in Title Suit
No.41/2006 was partly interfered with.
For the purpose of disposal of the instant review petition, the
relevant facts are that the respondent filed the suit seeking declaration of
right, title and interest as well as for recovery of khas possession in respect
to the suit premises. The said suit was initially registered and numbered
as Title Suit No.28/2005, which subsequently upon being transferred to the
Court of the Munsiff, North Salmara was numbered as Title Suit
No.41/2006. The defendants filed their written statement on 06.01.2005
and 14.11.2005 respectively.
Page No.# 4/5
At the time when the case was fixed for cross-examination of the
plaintiff witnesses, an application under Order XIII Rule 2 was filed by the
lawyer representing the defendants seeking leave to produce certain
documents. The said petition had been enclosed as Annexure-9 to the
instant review petition.
A perusal of the said petition does not disclose in any manner
what are the documents in respect of which, the leave was sought for. It
can also be seen that although a petition seeking leave to produce the
documents requires a judicial investigation but no affidavit was filed as is
required under the Civil Rules and Orders, as well as the provision of order
VI Rule 15(4) of the CPC. In fact, what transpires from the perusal of the
said application is that the lawyer had filed the said application seeking
leave.
A further perusal of the review petition at paragraph 10 reveals
that a statement has been made that the defendants filed their documents
along with the list with the petition seeking leave under Order XIII Rule 2
of the CPC and the said list of documents had been annexed as Annexure-
10 to the instant petition.
A perusal of the said list of documents enclosed as Annexure - 10
and more particularly, the hand written copy of the list of documents
enclosed as Annexure-10 reveals that though the date 4.08.2015 has been
put by the advocate but the Court fee had been shown to have been on
14.06.2016 and it is on the basis of this very document, the review
petitioner has approached this Court stating inter-alia that both the trial
Court as well as this Court had committed an error apparent on the face of
the record in not noticing that there was a list of documents filed along
with the documents.
I have perused the order sought to be reviewed as well as also
Page No.# 5/5
the records of Title Suit No.41/2006 which was called for by this court. I
don't find any of the grounds of review present for invoking the review
jurisdiction, rather, I am of the opinion that the review petitioner was trying
to mislead this Court by bringing in Annexure-10 which apparently was the
document dated 14.06.2016.
In that view of the matter, the review petition stands dismissed
with a cost of Rs.25,000/- which the review petitioner shall deposit before
the trial Court.
The plaintiff shall be at liberty to withdraw the said amount.
The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on
15.12.2021 and on that very date, the trial Court shall fixed a date for
cross-examination of further plaintiff witnesses.
The petitioners herein i.e., the defendants in the suit shall pay the
said amount of cost of Rs.25,000/- to the Trial Court on the date fixed for
appearance.
As the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court is requested to
dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of 1 (one) year.
Registry is directed to send down the LCR immediately.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
