Gauhati High Court
Smt Sushila Baraliya And Anr vs Sajjan Baraliya And 22 Ors on 19 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010059542025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RFA/23/2025
SMT SUSHILA BARALIYA AND ANR
W/O LATE JAGADISH BARALIYA, R/O PARBATIYA,TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O.
AND P.S. TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
2: SAURAV BERLIA
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
2: SAURAV BERLIA
S/O LATE JAGADISH BARALIYA
R/O PARBATIYA
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
VERSUS
SAJJAN BARALIYA AND 22 ORS
S/O LATE RAM KUMAR BARALIYA, R/O PARBOTIA, TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O.
AND P.S. TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN
2:SMT SANTOSH BARALIYA
W/O LATE SUBASH BARALIYA
R/O COLLEGE TINIALI
PARBOTIA
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125
3:ADITYA BARALIYA
Page No.# 2/8
S/O LATE SUBASH BARALIYA
R/O COLLEGE TINIALI
PARBOTIA
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125
4:ANSHU BARALIYA
S/O LATE SUBASH BARALIYA
R/O COLLEGE TINIALI
PARBOTIA
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125
5:SMT MUSKAN BARALIYA
D/O LATE SUBASH BARALIYA
R/O COLLEGE TINIALI
PARBOTIA
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125
6:SMT INDRA AGARWAL
W/O SRI JUGAL KISHORE AGARWAL
R/O RANGAGORA ROAD
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125
7:LAL CHAND BARALIYA
S/O LATE RAM KUMAR BARALIYA
R/O COLLEGE TINIALI
PARBOTIA
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN 786125
Page No.# 3/8
8:MAUD TEA AND SEED COMPANY LIMITED
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2-N.C. DUTTA SARANI
SAGAR ESTATE
5TH FLOOR
UNIT NO 1
KOLKATA 700001
WEST BENGAL.
9:TINSUKIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
10:SMT SAKUNTALA BARALIYA
W/O LATE BINOD BARALIYA
11:SMT NIHA BARALIYA
D/O LATE BINOD BARALIYA
12:PULUK BARALIYA
S/O LATE BINOD BARALIYA
13:SURESH BARALIYA
S/O LATE RAM KUMAR BARALIYA
R/O STATION CHARIALI
HOSPITAL ROAD
P.O. AND P.S. SIBSAGAR
DIST. SIBSAGAR
ASSAM
PIN 785640
14:SMT SANTI AGARWAL
W/O SRI NABUL KISHORE GUPTA
R/O C-29
1ST FLOOR
BHAGAWAN DAS NAGAR
DELHI 26
15:SMT PREMA AGARWAL
W/O SRI RAMAWATAR AGARWAL
R/O NARAYAN NAGAR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
Page No.# 4/8
16:JAY PRAKASH AGARWAL
S/O LATE PURANMAL AGARWAL
R/O STATION CHARIALI
SIBSAGAR TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. SIBSAGAR
DIST. SIBSAGAR
ASSAM.
17:BILOO AGARWAL
S/O LATE PURANMAL AGARWAL R/O STATION CHARIALI
SIBSAGAR TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. SIBSAGAR
DIST. SIBSAGAR
ASSAM.
18:RABI AGARWAL
S/O LATE PURANMAL AGARWAL
R/O STATION CHARIALI
SIBSAGAR TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. SIBSAGAR
DIST. SIBSAGAR
ASSAM.
19:SMT JHUNJHUNI AGARWAL
D/O LATE PURANMAL AGARWAL
R/O STATION CHARIALI
SIBSAGAR TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. SIBSAGAR
DIST. SIBSAGAR
ASSAM.
20:SMT DURGA AGARWAL
W/O NANDKISHORE AGARWAL
R/O SIMULGURI
P.O. AND P.S. SIMULGURI
DIST. SIBASAGAR
ASSAM.
21:SMT SUNITA JAIN
W/O MANISH JAIN
D/O LATE JAGADISH AGARWAL
R/O ROHINI
SECTOR 7
C-7-94-95
2ND FLOOR
DELHI.
Page No.# 5/8
22:RAJ KUMAR BARALIYA
S/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD BARALIYA
C/O M/S JAYANTI STORES
A.T. ROAD
NEAR BATA AGENCY
P.O. AND DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
23:BINIT BARALIYA
S/O LATE JAGDISH BARALIYA
R/O PARBATIYA
TINSUKIA TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
DEPUTY REGISTRAR (BENCH) - MR. SAPTARSHI DAS
ORDER
Date : 19.05.2026 Case taken up before the Lawazima Court.
Learned counsel Mr. R. Sharma appears on behalf of the appellants. Heard. Perused the records.
Perusal of the recent office note dated 16.05.2026 reveals that notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 23 via registered post with A/D and via usual process mode on 17.05.2025.
Now, regarding the said notices, this Lawazima Court observes as follows:-
In respect of the notice issued through registered post with A/D:- In regard to the said notice, it appears as follows:-
(i) The A/D cards (At Flag-'A/D cards' kept in a separate file) of the respondent Page No.# 6/8 Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 & 23 have been received by the Registry, perusal of which reveals the following:-
Respondent No. 1:- The A/D card bears signature of a person named 'Momta' Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 23:- The A/D cards have been signed by the same person. But it cannot be discerned how the person is related to the said respondents.
Respondent No. 7:- The A/D card bears the signature of a person named "Horli Devi". Respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12 & 13:- The A/D cards have been signed by a person named "Manju Lahoty". But it cannot be discerned how the above mentioned person is related to the said respondents.
Respondent Nos. 16, 17, 18 & 19:- The A/D cards have been signed by a person named "Mohan". But it cannot be discerned how the above mentioned person is related to the said respondents.
Respondent No. 22:- The A/D card bears the purported signature of the said respondent.
Now, in case of the aforementioned respondents, reference may be made to the case of Harihar Banerji v. Ramsashi Roy, 1918 SCC OnLine PC 58, wherein, the Hon'ble Privy Council held that where a notice was sent by registered post properly addressed there is a strong presumption that the notice was properly delivered in the usual course and this is not rebutted by the fact that the acknowledgment is signed by a person other than the addressee.
In the present case, it appears from the A/D cards and the office copy of the registered notice that the registered notice was properly addressed to the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 & 23 . Thus, in the present case, even though the A/D cards were signed by a person other than the respondents themselves, the notice will be presumed to be served on the said respondents (respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 & 23).
(ii) In respect of the remaining respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20 & 21, it appears that neither the A/D cards nor any un-served notices have been received by the Registry till date. Additionally, the postal tracking reports regarding the said notice are Page No.# 7/8 also not available at the Indian Post Website.
In respect of the notice issued through usual process:- Regarding the said notice, it appears as follows:-
(i) It appears that the process server's reports (At Flag-"Service Reports" kept in a separate file) of 1 to 7, 9, 10 to 13, 16 to 19, 22 & 23 have been received by this Registry. Now, a perusal of these service reports reveals the following:-
Respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, 16, 17, 18 & 19:- As per the process server reports, the respective notices have been duly received by the respondents themselves.
Respondent No. 2:- The notice issued to the said respondent was received by her niece in her absence.
Respondent Nos. 3 & 23:- The notices issued to the said respondents were received by their respective elder sisters in their absence.
Respondent No. 7:- The notice issued to the said respondent was received by his wife in his absence.
Respondent No. 9:- The notice issued to the said respondent was received by an employee of the office of the "Tinsukia Development Authority".
Respondent No. 22:- The notice issued to the said respondent was received by his nephew in his absence.
Respondent Nos. 10, 11 & 12:- The process server in its report stated that the respondent Nos. 10, 11 & 12 could not be found at the given addresses and as such, notices have been returned un-served to this Registry.
(ii) Unlike the above mentioned respondents, the process server's reports of respondent Nos. 8, 14, 15, 20 & 21 have not yet received by this Registry.
From the above observations, this Lawazima Court may discerned that the service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 1 to 7, 9 to 13, 16 to 19, 22 & 23 has been completed. Further, as far as the respondent Nos. 8, 14, 15, 20 & 21, it may be discerned that the service of notice upon the said respondents is yet to be effected.
In view of the circumstances stated above, learned counsel Mr. R. Sharma appearing for the appellants before the Lawazima Court today submits that the appellants would like to take fresh steps for service of notice upon the respondent Page No.# 8/8 Nos. 8, 14, 15, 20 & 21 by way of speed post mode.
In light of the prayer made above, the appellants are hereby afforded one week time to take fresh steps for service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 8, 14, 15, 20 & 21 via speed post mode [in terms of the Notification No. 85 dated 15th October, 2025 (at Flag-'N')].
Let the matter be listed before the Lawazima Court again on 26 th June, 2026.
Deputy Registrar (Bench) Comparing Assistant