Tapan Debnath Vs Lakhan Murmu and 7 Ors.

LAKHAN MURMU AND 7 ORS. S/O- LATE JOSEPH MURMU, VILL- MATIAJURI, P.O- HARAPUTA, P.SGOSSAIGAON, DIST- KOKRAJHAR, (BTAD), ASSAM, PIN- 783360 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOKRAJHAR P.O P.S AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 3:BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC) KOKRAJHAR REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY P.O P.S AND DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 4:SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) GOSSAIGAON P.O AND P.S- GOSSAIGAON DIST.- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

5:ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER GOSSAIGAON REVENUE CIRCLE GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 6:KANANGO OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. SETTLEMENT OFFICER GOSSAIGAON P.O AND P.S- GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 7:LAT MANDAL MATIAJURI REVENUE VILLAGE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER GOSSAIGAON P.O AND P.S- GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSAM 8:SUB REGISTRAR GOSSAIGAON P.O AND P.S- GOSSAIGAON DIST- KOKRAJHAR BTAD ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. O. Laskar, Advocate : Mr. S. Z. Rahman, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. B. Bora, for respondent 3 to 7 : Mr. T. R. Gogoi, Government Advocate

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 16.06.2025

¶15

Heard Mr. O. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶16

Page No.# 3/5

¶17

Petitioner and Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 8. I have also heard Ms. R. B. Bora, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. None appears on behalf of the respondent No.1.

¶18

The petitioner herein has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Kokrajhar in Petition No.348/2018 arising out of Title Suit No.09/2017 whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for rejection of the counter claim filed by the defendant No.1 in the suit was rejected.

¶19

The sole ground taken in the said application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code for rejection of the counter claim is that from the statements made in the counter claim, the suit was barred by limitation. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that the counter claimant i.e. the defendant No.1 had filed a counter claim seeking a decree for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land, for a decree declaring that the Lease Deed No.220/185 dated 09.07.2008 is null and void and the same be cancelled; for a decree for issuance of precept directing the Sub-Registrar to cancel the registered Lease Deed No.220/185 dated 09.07.2008; a decree for eviction against the plaintiff from the suit land etc.

¶20

It is relevant to take note of that the counter claimant had specifically mentioned at paragraph No.10 of the counter claim that he had no knowledge about the arrangement of preparing a lease deed. He further stated that he did not go to the Office of the Sub-Registrar at

¶21

Page No.# 4/5

¶22

Gosaigaon for getting registration of the so called lease deed. It was alleged that the lease deed was prepared by the plaintiff secretly by making conspiracy. It is further alleged in the counter claim that the counter claimant had no knowledge about the said lease deed and only on the date, the suit was brought against the counter claim, when he came to learn about the lease deed.

¶23

This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that a perusal of Article 56 as well as 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 stipulates that the date for a suit seeking declaration as regards forgery of an instrument issued or registered as well as for cancellation of an instrument is when the said aspect comes to the knowledge of the plaintiff for the first time. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Court based upon the reading of the counter claim had come to a finding that the date of the execution of the deed was in the year 2017 when the counter claimant received the copy of the said so called lease deed and as such, it was not barred by limitation. Taking into account the provisions of Article 56 as well as 59 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and the contents of the counter claim, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial was justified in rejecting the application seeking rejection of the counter claim on the ground that from a reading of the counter claim, it cannot be said that the counter claim was barred by limitation.

¶24

Considering the above, this Court therefore finds no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Kokrajhar in passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2019 whereby the petition No.348/2018 was rejected for which the instant petition stands

¶25

Page No.# 5/5

¶26

dismissed.

¶27

It is relevant to take note of that vide the order dated 22.03.2023 notice was issued and the LCR has been called for. The calling of the LCR had led to the stay of the suit proceedings. Accordingly, as the parties are duly represented before this Court, they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 11.08.2025.

¶28

The Registry shall ensure that the records of the learned Trial Court are returned and the records are available before the learned Trial Court prior to the date so fixed herein above.

¶29

It is further observed that the observations so made in the impugned order as well as the observations so made in the present order shall not prejudice the parties in the trial of the suit on merits including on the issue of limitation.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Tapan Debnath v. Lakhan Murmu and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Debnath v. Lakhan Murmu and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Sangeeta Singh Vs Arup Bhattacharjee

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dulumoni Deka and 6 Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dulumoni Deka and 6 Ors.

Bikash Chandra Pradhani Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Monikankana Saikia and 2 Ors. Vs Pranjal Bora

Bivakar Dutta, Vs on the Death of Girishmoni Namasudra