Gauhati High Court
Murari Lal Kedia And Anr vs Moushumi Bagchi And 4 Ors on 3 January, 2022
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010019042019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/45/2017
1. MURARI LAL KEDIA and ANR.
S/O LATE KESHARDEO KEDIA
2: SMTI SAKUNTALA KEDIA
W/O SRI MURARI LAL KEDIA
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KHALIAHAMARI
PO AND PS DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
VERSUS
MOUSHUMI BAGCHI and 4 ORS.
WIFE OF ATISH CHANDRA BAGCHI
2:ATISH CHANDRA BAGCHI
S/O LATE AJIT CHANDRA BAGCHI
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF MANCUTTA ROAD
PO AND PS DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786001
3:SMTI GEETA DUTTA
WIFE OF LATE MONORANJAN DUTTA
C/O SRI NIRMAN CHANDRA PAUL
RESIDENT OF ASHIT NAGAR
PO and PS DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786001
4:SRI NIRMAL CHANDRA PAUL
SON OF NITAI CHANDRA PAUL
RESIDENT OF ASHIT NAGAR
PO and PS DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM
PIN-786001
5:SRI PRADIP KUMAR BARUAH
SON OF LATE PRAFULLA KUMAR BARUAH
RESIDENT OF SITARAM PUKUR PAR
PO and PS DIBRUGARH
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786001
------------
Advocate for : MS.G SHARMA
Advocate for : MR.A BARUAR- 1and2 appearing for MOUSHUMI BAGCHI and 4
ORS.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 03-01-2022 Heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 09.02.2017 passed in Title Suit No.44/2008.
The basic contention of the petitioner before this court is that the order dated 09.02.2017 by which the petitioner has been permitted to adduce secondary evidence does not contain specifically under what provisions the Court below had permitted the petitioner to adduce secondary evidence and as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the latter stage of the suit the petitioner would be in difficulty if such indication is not given by the trial Court while permitting the petitioner to adduce secondary evidence.
I have also heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel Page No.# 3/3 appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who submits that the perusal of the order dated 09.02.2017 clearly goes to show that the petitioner was permitted to adduce secondary evidence on the ground that the said original documents have been lost and as such, there is no necessity for any interference with the order dated 09.02.2017.
I have perused the order dated 09.02.2017 and from the said order it reveals that the Court below prior to permitting the petitioner to adduce secondary evidence had categorically come to a finding that 12 numbers of documents have been lost on the ground and reasons mentioned in the said order.
From the said order it therefore reveals that the Court below while permitting the petitioner to adduce secondary evidence had permitted the petitioner to do so in exercise of the powers under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, no interference is required to be called for to the order dated 09.02.2017.
The instant petition stands disposed of with a direction to the parties to appear before the Court below on 01.02.2022.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant