Allowed

Barom Siram v. Ogon Siram and Anr.

Gauhati HC3 Aug 2022CRP/39/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside a lower court order dismissing an application to adduce evidence due to the inadvertent omission of the petitioner's and another witness's names from the list of witnesses. The revision was allowed on the parties' agreement to permit the petitioner to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.07.2017 stands set aside; petitioner allowed to adduce evidence in PSG Title Suit No. 11/2015; parties to appear within 15 days; parties bear their own costs.

Barom Siram Vs Ogon Siram and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040008912022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP 39/2022

¶5

1:Barom Siram S/o Late Nyokar Siram, R/o Mirbuk Village, PO/PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. Mob. No. 9436638841

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:Ogon Siram and Anr. S/o Late Kuli Siram, R/o Tigra, MirbukVillage, PO/PS Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶8

2:Oyin Yomso S/o Late Oyem Yomso

¶9

R/o Mirbuk Village PO/PS Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nalo Pada

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : Ninnong Ratan

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶14

ORDER

¶15

03.08.2022

¶16

Heard Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶17

2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.07.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pasighat, in I.A. No. 37/2017, in PSG Title Suit No. 11/2015.

¶18

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for filing the deposition of the petitioner and one more vital witness, whose name was left to be mentioned in the list of witnesses, inadvertently.

¶19

4. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:

¶20

“The petitioner has instituted a title suit, being PSG Title Suit No. 11/2015, before the learned Additional District Judge, East Siang District, Pasighat. In the said title suit, the petitioner, being the plaintiff, has submitted the list of witnesses. But, inadvertently, the name of the plaintiff and one more witness was left to be mentioned in the list of witnesses and

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

thereafter, the petitioner preferred one interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 37/2017, before the learned Court below and after hearing both the parties, the learned Court below has dismissed the same to avoid further delay in disposal of the case.”

¶23

5. Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the plaintiff is the vital witness of the suit and if he is not allowed to adduce evidence, then grave prejudice would be caused to him and the counsel engaged by the petitioner has omitted to mention the name of the petitioner and one more witness and for the fault of the counsel, the petitioner should not suffer and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶24

6. On the other hand, Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that he has no objection if the petitioner is allowed to adduce evidence. But he has objection in allowing one more witness to adduce evidence here in this case.

¶25

7. In reply, Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that if the petitioner is allowed to adduce evidence, then it will suffice for him.

¶26

8. In view of above and also as agreed to by the parties, the impugned order, dated 27.07.2017, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pasighat, in I.A. No. 37/2017, in PSG Title Suit No. 11/2015, stands set aside. The learned Court below is directed to allow the petitioner to adduce evidence in the PSG Title Suit No. 11/2015. The parties have to appear before the learned Court below within 15 (fifteen) days from today.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

9. In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.

¶29

10. The LCR, as called for, be returned immediately.

¶30

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Barom Siram v. Ogon Siram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barom Siram v. Ogon Siram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Techi Kak Vs Bijay Biswas @ Dengu and 2 Ors.

Dana Pertin Vs Baity Jamoh and 4 Ors.

Munu Sharma Vs the State of Ap

Raja Rai Vs the State of Ap

Talok Ringling Vs the State of Ap

Taru Rai Vs the State of Ap