Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Md Idrish Ali on 21 May, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010231532024
2025:GAU-AS:6442
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/445/2024
SRI SUKLAL CHANDRA DAS AND 3 ORS
S/O- NIBARAN CHANDRA DAS,
R/O- NO-1, GARUMARA, MOUZA- RANGAGORAH,
P.S- SAMAGURI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782140
2: DILIP CHANDRA DAS
S/O- NIBARAN CHANDRA DAS
R/O- NO-1
GARUMARA
MOUZA- RANGAGORAH
P.S- SAMAGURI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782140
3: DULAL CHANDRA DAS
S/O- NIBARAN CHANDRA DAS
R/O- NO-1
GARUMARA
MOUZA- RANGAGORAH
P.S- SAMAGURI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782140
4: PREMLAL CHANDRA DAS
S/O- NIBARAN CHANDRA DAS
R/O- NO-1
GARUMARA
Page No.# 2/5
MOUZA- RANGAGORAH
P.S- SAMAGURI
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78214
VERSUS
MD IDRISH ALI
S/O- LATE ABDUL ZABBAR, R/O- VILLAGE- GARUMARA, MOUA-
RANGAGORAH, P.S- SAMAGURI, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782140
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A C SARMA, MR N BRAHMA,MR B DEORI,MR G
BHARADWAJ
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. S BORA, MR. P BORAH
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr G Bharadwaj
Advocate for the respondent(s) : Ms S Bora
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 21.05.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr G Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
and Ms S Bora, who appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present application has been filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of
this Court to challenge the order dated 31.08.2023, passed in Title Suit No. 153 of 2012,
in connection with Petition No. 252/2022, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code), whereby the Learned Court of Civil Judge
Page No.# 3/5
(Junior Division) No. 2, Nagaon (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Learned Trial Court'),
had allowed the said application.
3. It is relevant to take note of that the said application was filed at the stage of
arguments. Both the parties duly admit that the suit was fixed for arguments in the year
2019. Thereupon, on 24.01.2022, the defendants No. 5 in the suit, who is the sole
respondent herein, filed an application under Section 151 of the Code, to adduce
additional evidence by bringing on record, a registered Sale Deed No. 4282/09, which
the defendant No. 5 states that the number of the said deed of sale could be ascertained
only on 15.10.2019, and the certified copy was obtained thereafter, and the counsel, who
represented the defendant No. 5 was instructed on 15.11.2019, to file a petition, seeking
granting of leave.
4. This Court duly takes note of that the Learned Trial Court, on 31.08.2023, disposed
of the said application, by permitting the defendant No. 5 to file the certified copy of the
registered deed of sale, bearing Deed No. 4289/09.
5. Being aggrieved, the present proceedings have been initiated.
6. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the
parties and given an anxious consideration to the matter. At the outset, this Court finds it
relevant to take note of that it surprises this Court that when a petition was filed under
Section 151 of the Code, on 24.01.2022, as to how there is so much of delay in disposal
of such an application, inasmuch, as the order was passed on 31.08.2023, more than 19
months from the date of filing of the said application.
7. This Court further takes note the written statement, wherein there is a mention
about the sale being made by one Nirmal Nath in favour of Dilip Mura. However, there
is no foundation laid in the written statement, or even in the application so filed under
Page No.# 4/5
Section 151 of the Code, as to why the original could not be produced and why
permission should be accorded for adducing secondary evidence. It further surprises this
Court that the Learned Trial Court had fixed the matter for filing the certified copy of the
said sale deed, but without taking into consideration that this certified copy cannot be
adduced in such a manner, it has to be adduced by adducing further evidence through a
defendant witness.
8. Be that as it may, taking into account that the Learned Trial Court is of the opinion
that the said document would be essential for a just decision in the suit, this Court would
not like to interfere with the discretion so exercised in permitting to adduce additional
evidence. However, this Court observes that the adducing of the additional evidence of
the Deed of Sale has to be in the manner envisaged in the law, i.e., by way of a witness.
Further to that, the plaintiffs would also have a right to cross-examine on the veracity of
the said deed of sale, as well as also put under objection, the said deed of sale, being a
secondary evidence.
9. This Court, further observes that in such a circumstance, if the said deed of sale is
put under objection, the Learned Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of the said
deed of sale, shall do so, without being influenced by the order dated 21.08.2023.
10. With the above, the instant proceedings stand disposed of.
11. The interim order passed by this Court on 08.11.2024, stands vacated, and the
parties, who are duly represented, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court,
on 11th of June, 2025, on which date, the defendant No. 5 shall file the additional
examination-in-chief of a witness, along with the certified copy of the deed of sale, if so
advised.
12. It is observed that if the said examination-in-chief is not filed, the Learned Trial
Page No.# 5/5
Court can proceed with the disposal of the suit. Further, the observation made that the
Defendant No. 5 would file the examination-in-chief of a witness, along with the
certified copy of the Deed of Sale, should not be construed that this Court had permitted
adducing of secondary evidence.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
