Gauhati High Court
Sukhendu Sekhar Deb vs Arun Kumar Bist And 8 Ors on 12 November, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010098942022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/107/2022
SUKHENDU SEKHAR DEB
S/O LATE JAAN RANJAN DEB, R/O CHORGOLA VALLEY TEA ESTATE,
BAZARAGHAT, P.O.-BAZARAGHAT, P.S.-RATABARI, DIST- KARIMGANJ,
ASSAM
VERSUS
ARUN KUMAR BIST AND 8 ORS
S/ LATE JANG BAHADUR SIGH BIST, R/O 12, GREEN PARK CHOWK,
DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND
2:SMT. ARUMA RAWT @ ARUMA BIST
W/O SRI ARUN KUMAR BIST
R/O 12
GREEN PARK CHOWK
DEHRADUN
UTTARAKHAND
3:VIKASH KUMAR BIST
S/O LATE JANG BAHADUR SINGH BIST
R/O 31
DILRAM BAZAR
DEHRADUN
UTTARAKHAND
4:M/S GANESH PLANTATATION PVT. LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICE AT A.T. ROAD
DIBRUGARH TOWN
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR
Page No.# 2/4
SHRI NIRMAL BARIA
S/O LATE BHAGATRAM BARIA
R/O DIBRUGARH TOWN
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
5:TEH SECRETARY
CHA-SRAMIK UNION
SADARGHTA ROAD
SILCHAR
P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
6:TEA ASSOCIATION OF INDIA
AMBIKAPATTY
SILCHAR
P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
7:THE SECRETARY CUM PF COMMISSIONER BOARD OF TRUSTEE ATPPF
SCHEME
NIDHI BHAWAN
LALMATI
GUWAHATI-29
8:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARIMGANJ
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST-KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
9:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST-KARIMGANJ
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MR K BISWAKARMA,MS B DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. P D NAIR (R4),MR. A CHETRY (R4),MR G
ALAM (R4),MR. H ROHMAN (R4),S R A NASER (R4)
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
12.11.2025
Heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A C
Sarma, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. This is an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the
order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Title Suit No.
05/2008.
3. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondents praying for a declaration that he is
the bonafide owner in respect of the suit property (a tea garden), which he had inherited
from his predecessors of which he is still in possession.
4. The petitioner also prayed that the Sale Deed No. 245 dated 17.05.2000 is liable to be
cancelled.
5. The suit reached the stage of passing the judgment after both sides had made their
oral submissions at the time of argument. At that time, the petitioner filed an application
under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for issuing a Commission to
ascertain as to who is actually running the Chargola Valley Tea Estate physically.
6. Considering the stage at which the case was pending and also considering the fact
that it was a long pending case, the trial court rejected the prayer for issuing a Commission.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides.
8. Under the given circumstances, this court is of the opinion that on the present issue,
an elaborate discussion is not necessary. The case is at the passing the judgment. Moreover,
this court is again of the opinion that issuing the Commission will delay the disposal of the
case. Lastly, this court has no hesitation to hold that issuing a Commission would amount to
collection of evidence and it is not permitted by law.
Page No.# 4/4
9. For the said reasons, the present revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and
stands dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
