Page No.# 1/6 vs Smt. Beethi Paul Choudhury And 6 Ors on 6 March, 2026

                                                                Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010045272026




                                                         undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : CRP(IO)/65/2026

         SMT. MITHU DUTTA AND 2 ORS.
         W/O LATE ASHISH DUTTA, R/O VIVEKANANDA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
         SOCIETY, NS AVENUE, P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM

         2: MS. PALLAVI DEVI @ RUMPA DUTTA
          D/O LATE ASHISH DUTTA
          R/O VIVEKANANDA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
          NS AVENUE
          P.S.- SILCHAR
          DIST- CACHAR
         ASSAM

         3: AKASH DUTTA @ SHIBOM DUTTA
          S/O LATE ASHISH DUTTA
          R/O VIVEKANANDA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
          NS AVENUE
          P.S.- SILCHAR
          DIST- CACHAR
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         SMT. BEETHI PAUL CHOUDHURY AND 6 ORS.
         W/O LATE SHANTI PAUL CHOUDHURY, R/O CHURCH ROAD SILCHAR, P.O.
         AND P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM

         2:MS. SARMISTHA PAUL CHOUDHURY
          D/O LATE SHANTI PAUL CHOUDHURY
          R/O CHURCH ROAD SILCHAR
          P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR
          DIST- CACHAR
         ASSAM

         3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
                                                                         Page No.# 2/6

             REPRESENTED THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
             DEPT. OF CO-OPERATIVE
             DISPUR
             GUWAHATI-6

            4:REGISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
             KHANAPARA
             GUWAHATI-21

            5:ZONAL JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
             CACHAR AND SRIBHUMI
             SADARGHAT ROAD
             P.S.- SILCHAR
             DIST- CACHAR
            ASSAM

            6:ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
             CACHAR AND SRIBHUMI
             SADARGHAT ROAD
             P.S.- SILCHAR
             DIST- CACHAR
            ASSAM

            7:VIVEKANANDA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
             MEHERPUR
             NS AVENUE
             SILCHAR-5
             DIST- CACHAR
            ASSAM
             BEING REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE HOUSING SOCIET

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S P CHOUDHURY,

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                         ORDER

Date : 06.03.2026

Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.02.2026, passed by the learned Page No.# 3/6

Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar at Silchar, in Title Suit No. 42/2010.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 13.02.2026, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar at Silchar ('trial Court', for short) has rejected the petition No. 2187/14, filed by the petitioners for framing additional issue.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein as plaintiff had filed one title suit, being Title Suit No. 42/2010, for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession with regard to the land as described in the schedule of the plaint. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the petitioners herein, being defendants, contested the suit by filing written statement and counter-claim, and thereafter, both the parties led evidence and during the course of hearing, the petitioners herein had filed a petition, under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, to frame an additional issue as under:

"Whether the order No. JRCS/0.6/87/149, dated 19.09.2009 passed by Zonal Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies was legal and proper and whether the said order needs to be set aside?"

4.1. Mr. Choudhury also submits that in the said petition, the respondents herein had filed objection and thereafter, hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court had dismissed the petition, vide impugned order dated 13.02.2026, on the ground that there was no prayer on the part of the petitioners for setting aside the order No. JRCS/0.6/87/149, dated 19.09.2009, in their counter-claim, and the learned trial Court had also observed that although this Court had passed an order to the effect that they may raise the issue in the civil suit already instituted before the learned trial Court in the year 2017, but they did Page No.# 4/6

not raise the issue for the last eight years, and thereafter, the learned trial Court had held that the issue does not appear to be vital and the petitioners did not raise the same till the argument's day, and therefore, rejected the same.

4.2. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the petitioners had preferred one writ petition, being WP(C) No. 5570/2009, challenging the order No. JRCS/0.6/87/149, dated 19.09.2009, but this Court, vide order dated 05.05.2017, had disposed of the same by holding that already the parties to the petition had raised disputes in the Civil Court and the petitioner also participated by filing the written statement, and in such a situation, the issue involved in the writ petition may be raised in the Civil Court wherein the suit between the parties is pending. It is also the submission of Mr. Choudhury that thereafter, the matter was apprised to the engaged counsel by the petitioners, but the same was not taken care of, and that it is well settled that due to fault of the advocate, the litigant should not suffer. Mr. Choudhury further submits that no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties in the event of allowing this present petition, and under such circumstances, he has contended to allow the same.

4.3. In support of this submission, Mr. Choudhury has also referred to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal and Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SC 1103, wherein it has been held that the object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the Courts, so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon, and when the facts necessary to make out a particular claim or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the Court cannot focus the attention of the parties or its own attention on that claim or relief by framing an appropriate issue, and thus, it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that Page No.# 5/6

is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc.

5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, and also gone through the order of this Court dated 05.05.2017, passed in WP(C) No. 5570/2009, and the decision referred by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. It appears that in WP(C) No. 5570/2009, this Court had directed the parties to raise the dispute in the Civil Court, as the petitioners had been participating in the civil suit by filing written statement. But since then, more than eight years elapsed, and the petitioners have failed to file amendment petition for amendment of the counter-claim, to incorporate a prayer for cancellation of the order No. JRCS/0.6/87/149, dated 19.09.2009.

7. Further, a perusal of the written statement-cum-counterclaim filed by the petitioners, which is produced before this Court by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, reveals that no such prayer for cancellation of the said order has been made, though in para number 21(l), it has been mentioned that this Court was placed to issue notice of motion with interim order for maintenance of status quo as regards the properties mentioned in the order dated 19.09.2009.

8. Thus, it is not in dispute that in spite of the direction passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5570/2009, the petitioners have failed to raise the issue before the learned trial Court for the last eight years. And though Mr. Choudhury has Page No.# 6/6

offered an explanation by putting blame upon the conducting lawyer, the same left this Court unimpressed. Moreover, the case is pending at the stage of argument and if, at this stage, the petition is allowed, then it will cause further delay in disposing of the suit and on such count, serious prejudice will be caused to the other side, as the title suit was instituted in the year 2010.

9. This Court has also carefully gone through the decision referred by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, and this Court is of the view that the same would not advance his argument, rather, it goes against him in view of the observation made in the aforesaid decision that the jurisdiction to grant relief in civil suit necessarily depends upon the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in etc. In the instant case, the petitioners have not prayed such facts and relief in the pleadings i.e. in the counter-claim and the evidence of both the parties is already over and the case is pending at the stage of argument. After sleeping for more than eight years, and at the stage of argument of the suit, suddenly the petitioners rose from the slumber and filed the present petition.

10. Thus, having examined the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, in the light of the given facts and circumstances on the record, and also in the light of the proposition laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar (supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality, requiring any interference of this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed at this motion stage itself.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant