Gauhati High Court
Hari Mohan Singha And 2 Ors vs Tamalai Sinha And 6 Ors on 4 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 GAUHATI 79, AIRONLINE 2020 GAU 123
Author: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Bench: Prasanta Kumar Deka
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010238372017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP 210/2017
1:HARI MOHAN SINGHA and 2 ORS.
S/O- LATE CHOUBA SINGHA, R/O- CHIPARSANGAN, HAILAKANDI, , DIST-
HAILAKANDI, ASSAM
2: DINOMONI SINGHA
S/O- LATE CHOUBA SINGHA
R/O- CHIPARSANGAN
HAILAKANDI
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
3: SUSHILA SINHA
W/O- PRAFULLA SINGHA
R/O- KATAKHAL
KABUGANJ
P.O- DHOLAI
P.S- DHOLAI
DIST- CACHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
1:TAMALAI SINHA and 6 ORS.
W/O- LATE NABA KUMAR SINGHA
2:RAJU SINHA
S/O- LATE NABA KUMAR SINGHA
3:SUREN SINHA
S/O- LATE NABA KUMAR SINGHA
4:NABIN KUMAR SINHA
S/O- LATE NABA KUMAR SINGHA
Page No.# 2/6
5:SUKHEN SINHA
S/O- LATE NABA KUMAR SINGHA
6:REENA SINHA
D/O- LATE NABA KUMAR SINGHA
7:RITA SINHA
W/O- SRI RAJU SINHA
D/O- LATE NABA KUMAR SINGHA
ALL ARE R/O- VILL AND P.O- BHAKATPUR
AMBICAPUR PART- VIII
SILCHAR-5
P.S- SILCHAR
DIST- CACHAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D MAZUMDAR
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA order 04.05.2020 Heard Ms. S Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioners.
As per office note dated 26.11.2019, it is seen that notices were duly served on all the respondents as per the service report through steps taken by usual process. Vide order dated 11.03.2020 upon consideration of the service report on the respondents more specifically respondent No. 7, matter was fixed for admission. Considering the same, this revision petition is taken up for its disposal today.
The present petitioners are the defendants in T.S. No. 09/2015 filed by the plaintiffs respondents pending in the court of learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar. The suit is for declaration of right, title and interest, recovery of khas possession and injunction. The petitioners defendants entered appearance and filed a joint written statement thereby Page No.# 3/6 pleading specifically the devolution of title upon them as follows:
"(b) That, there are the answering defendant No. 2 by a Sale Deed No. 1659 of the year 2004 executed and registered on 02.06.2004 executed by Sri Nabarun Chakraborty S/O Late Naba Gopal Chakraborty being the heir of Late Nagendra Chakraborty, purchased ownership right measuring an area of 4 K of land appertaining to Dag No. 670, 2nd R.S. Patta No. 243 under Mouja: Ambicapur Pt. VIII, Ph. Barakpar with a definite and specific boundary on payment of valuable consideration, obtained possession therein and as such became full owner of the said 4 K. of land described in the schedule of the aforesaid Sale Deed No. 1659 of the year 2004.
(c) That, the answering defendant No. 3 by a Sale Deed No. 1660 of the year 2004 executed and registered on 02.06.2004 executed by Sri Nabarun Chakraborty S/O Late Naba Gopal Chakraborty being the heir of Late Nagendra Chakraborty, purchased ownership right measuring and area of 4 K. of land appertaining to Dag No. 670, 2 nd R.S. Patta No. 243 under Mouja: Ambicapur Pt. VIII, Ph. Barakpar with a definite and specific boundary on payment of valuable consideration, obtained possession therein and as such became full owner of the said 4 K. of land described in the Schedule of the aforesaid Sale Deed No. 1660 of the year 2004.
(d) That, by a Sale deed No. 2914 of the year 2004 executed on 15.09.2004 and registered on 20.09.2004, executed by aforesaid Sri Nabarun Chakraborty, the answering defendant No. 4 purchased an area of 4 K. of land in the aforesaid Dag No. 670, 2nd R.S. Patta No. 243 i.e. the suit patta on payment of valuable consideration and obtained possession therein. The answering defendant No. 4 since her purchase possessing the said 4 K. of land within definite and specific boundary without any interference from any quarter and within the full knowledge of the co-villagers as well as the plaintiffs by posting boundary pillars in presence of the predecessor of the plaintiffs."
In addition to that the petitioners specifically mentioned the sale permission granted by the Silchar Development Authority prior to execution of the aforesaid sale deeds mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs. It is submitted that along with the written statement, the list of Page No.# 4/6 documents relied along with photocopies of the certified copies of the aforesaid sale deeds Nos. 1659 dated 02.06.2004, 1660 dated 02.06.2004 and 2914 dated 20.09.2004 were filed in the court. Issues were framed whereafter the petitioners filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC seeking for calling of the following documents:
" SCHEDULE-I
1. The originals of certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1659 of the year 2004 executed by one Nabarun Chakraborty in favour of Sri Hari Mohan Singha, executed and registered on 02.06.2004.
2. The originals of certified copy of sale deed No. 1660 of the year 2004 executed by one Nabarun Chakraborty in favour of Sri Dinomoni Singha, executed and registered on 02.06.2004.
3. The originals of certified copy of sale deed No. 2914 of the year 2004 executed by one Nabarun Chakraborty in favour of Smt. Sushila Singha, executed on 15.09.2004 registered on 20.09.2004. (The original records are lying under the custody of the office of Sr. Sub-Registrar, Cachar, Silchar).
SCHEDULE-II Item No. 1 The entire records relating to permission of construction vide No. SDA159/BP/2005-2006/17 dated 08/11/2006 in the name of Smt. Sushila Singha issued by Silchar Development Authority along with approved sketch of the building.
Item No. 2 The entire records relating to permission for construction vide No. SDA. 159/BP/2011-12/96 dated 10.03.2015 in the name of Hari Mohan Singh & Ors. issued by Silchar Development Authority along with approved sketch of the building.
(The originals records are lying in the office custody of the Chairman, Silchar Development Authority.) SCHEDULE-III The entire records of Case No. 1269M/2014 U/s 144 Cr.P.C. (disposed of on 05/01/2015) filed by Nabin Kumar Singha S/O Late Naba Kumar Singha of Ambicapur Page No.# 5/6 Pt. VIII (Bhakatpur P.S. Silchar as 1st party and one Balaram Singha S/O Late Kishre Singh of the same address and another as 2nd party.
(The originals records are lying in the office custody of Cr.P.C. Branch, D.C. Cachar).
The plaintiffs/ respondents filed a written objection against the said petition. The learned court below vide order dated 17.02.2017 disallowed the said petition under Order XI Rule 14 of the CPC. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed this revision petition impugning the said rejection order.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned court below while passing the impugned order took note of the provision under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC and came to the finding that no leave was taken by the defendants/ petitioners for producing documents at a later stage. Further it was noted that the petition was filed after framing of issues. Now as required under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, a duty is cast upon the defendant to produce the documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him. In the present case in hand and on perusal of the written statement, it is found that the petitioners specifically mentioned about the sale deeds, the originals of which were being called for from the official custodian like the Sub-Registrar, Cachar and other officials. It is not the case wherein the petitioners did not mention about the said documents and the defence taken in the written statement. In fact, as per the submission of the learned counsel, the photocopy of the certified copies of the sale deeds were submitted along with written statement and under such circumstances the finding of the learned court below, that while filing the written statement there was no leave taken by the defendants petitioners for producing the documents at later stage in my considered opinion, is not proper. The application for calling the documents was filed at the proper stage inasmuch as once the issues are framed the subsequent stage as per the practice followed in the civil court, is "steps before peremptory hearing (SBPH)". This is the proper stage requiring the parties to the suit to be ready for entering into the evidence stage. In my considered view if any document which forms the basis of defence with specific pleadings in the written statement it is sufficient satisfaction of the provision of Order VIII Rule 1A Sub-rule 2 CPC as it is the mandate to specify the custodian of a particular document, only if it is possible. So it is not mandatory. Accordingly, I Page No.# 6/6 found merit in this revision petition resulting setting aside of the impugned order dated 17.02.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in T.S. No. 09/2015 and the learned court below shall allow the petitioners to take appropriate steps to call for the documents as hereinabove referred. Accordingly, this revision petition stands disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. On receipt of the copy of this order, the learned court below shall issue notice to the plaintiffs fixing a date for appearance of the parties to the suit. No cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant