Smti Joymoni Basumatary and 2 Ors. Vs Smti Rebika @ Ribeka Basumatary and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smti Joymoni Basumatary and 2 Ors. Vs Smti Rebika @ Ribeka Basumatary and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition disposed of with observations and directions: (i) defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the documents mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V) before the learned Trial Court; (ii) the photocopy documents contended to contain the original signature of Pronoy Basumatary (since deceased) to be admitted into evidence subject to objections raisable by the defendants, such objections to be dealt with at the stage of appreciation of evidence; (iii) the stay order dated 05.10.2021 vacated and all parties directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 09.04.2025; (iv) on production, the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders and proceed with the disposal of the suit in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether, when a petition seeking directions upon the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce certain documents remains undisposed, the learned Trial Court could direct the adducing of secondary evidence in terms of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. +2 more

Court's answer

The impugned order required modification because it was passed without taking into consideration that, in respect to some of the documents, the petitioners had not taken steps as is otherwise envisaged under the law.

Ratio / Principle

When there is a petition seeking directions upon the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce certain documents and that petition has not been disposed of, the learned Trial Court could not have directed the adducing of secondary evidence in terms of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Key takeaways

The documents referred to, wherein the plaintiffs contend that they contain the original signature of Pronoy Basumatary (since deceased), are to be admitted into evidence, subject to such objections as may be raised by the defendants in the suit.ratio¶34
Objections to the said documents are to be dealt with at the time of appreciation of the evidence while the suit is decided by the learned Trial Court.ratio¶35
The petitioners, who are the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and who are in power and possession of the documents mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V), shall produce those documents before the learned Trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision (CRP(IO)/85/2021, Gauhati High Court, Devashis Baruah J., order dated 10.03.2025, neutral citation 2025:GAU-AS:2552) against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Udalguri in Title Suit No.02/2017, whereby the Trial Court disposed of Petition No.606/2021 dated 30.07.2019 (direction sought upon defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce documents) and Petition No.607/2021 dated 30.07.2019 (permission sought for the plaintiffs to adduce secondary evidence). Held: the impugned order required modification, having been passed without considering that the petitioners had not taken steps envisaged under the law in respect of some documents; and where a production petition remains undisposed, the Trial Court could not have directed adducing of secondary evidence in terms of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Directions issued: defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the documents at paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V) before the Trial Court; the photocopies contended to bear the original signature of Pronoy Basumatary (since deceased) to be admitted into evidence subject to defendants' objections, which are to be dealt with at the time of appreciation of evidence; the stay of further proceedings dated 05.10.2021 vacated; parties to appear before the Trial Court on 09.04.2025, which shall pass appropriate orders on production and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Revision petition disposed of.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010139872021

2025:GAU-AS:2552

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

Case No. : CRP(IO)/85/2021

SMTI JOYMONI BASUMATARY AND 2 ORS

W/O LATE PRONOY BASUMATARY, R/O NO. 1 SAPKHAITI, WARD NO. 5, UDALGURI TOWN, P.O.-UDALGURI, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST-UDALGURI, B.T.A.D ASSAM, PIN-784509

2: MISS PRISKLINA BASUMATARY D/O LATE PRONOY BASUMATARY R/O NO. 1 SAPKHAITI WARD NO. 5 UDALGURI TOWN P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI B.T.A.D ASSAM PIN-784509

3: DAWGA BASUMATARY S/O LATE PRONOY BASUMATARY R/O NO. 1 SAPKHAITI WARD NO. 5 UDALGURI TOWN P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI B.T.A.D ASSAM PIN-78450

VERSUS

SMTI REBIKA @ RIBEKA BASUMATARY AND 3 ORS. W/O SRI TARUN BASUMATARY, R/O UDALGURI TOWN, P.O.-UDALGURI, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST-UDALGURI, B.T.A.D. ASSAM, PIN-784509

2:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

Page No.# 2/6

REPRESENTED BY THE AREA MANAGER INDANE AREA OFFICE MARKETING DIVISION NOONMATI GUWAHATI-781021 3:BINOY DAIMARI S/O LATE AKHAR DAIMARI R/O VILL-BALISINGA MOUZA-AMBAGAN P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI BTC ASSAM PIN-784509 4:TARUN BASUMATARY S/O LATE ANTHOP BASUMATARY R/O VILL-KAHIBARI P.O.-UDALGURI P.S.-UDALGURI DIST-UDALGURI BTC ASSAM PIN-78450

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. AR Shome

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. B Pushilal Mr. A Jahid

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

10.03.2025

Page No.# 3/6

Heard Mr. AR Shome, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. B Pushilal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 4 and Mr. A Jahid, the learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.2.

This is a petition challenging the order dated 26.07.2011 passed in Title Suit No.02/2017 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Udalguri.

It is seen that the learned Trial Court vide the order dated 26.07.2011 disposed of two applications. First is the application filed by the plaintiff who is the respondent No.1 herein, whereby the plaintiff suit for a direction upon the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the various documents mentioned in the said petition being Petition No.606/2021 dated 30.07.2019. It is further seen that vide the said impugned order another petition being Petition No.607/2021 dated 30.07.2019 was also disposed of. It is relevant to take note of that while Petition No.606/2021 dated 30.07.2019 is a petition directing the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce the documents mentioned in the said petition, the Petition No.607/2021 dated 30.07.2019 is a petition thereby to permit the plaintiffs to adduce secondary evidence.

This Court during the course of the hearing enquired with Mr. AR Shome, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as to which are the documents presently in the possession of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the documents which have been specifically mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V) are in the possession of the

Page No.# 4/6

petitioners. He, however, submits that the petitioners who are the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are not in possession of the other documents.

Mr. B Pushilal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff submitted that the documents Nos.11(B), 11(C), 11(D), 11(E), 11(F), 11(G), 11(H), 11(I), 11(J), 11(L), 11(N), 11(P), 11(Q), 11(R) and 11(S) though are the photocopies of the documents, but these documents contain the original signature of Pronoy Basumatary (since deceased).

Taking into account the above submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Udalguri in Title Suit No.02/2017 requires certain modifications, inasmuch as, the said order had been passed without taking into consideration that in respect to some of the documents, the petitioners have not taken steps as is otherwise envisaged under the law. Even otherwise also, it is relevant to take note of that when there was a petition being filed seeking directions upon the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 to produce certain documents without disposal of the said petition, the learned Trial Court could not have directed the adducing of secondary evidence in terms with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Taking into account the above, this Court disposes of the instant revision petition with the following observation(s) and direction(s):

(i). The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, who are in power and possession of the

Page No.# 5/6

documents mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V) are directed to produce the said documents before the learned Trial Court on the next date so fixed;

(ii). As regards the documents referred to hereinabove wherein the plaintiffs contends that these documents contain the original signature of Pronoy Basumatary (since deceased), it is the opinion of this Court that the said documents be admitted into evidence, however, subject to such objections which may be raised by the defendants in the suit;

(iii). It is the further opinion of this Court that these objections be dealt with at the time of appreciation of the evidence while the suit is decided by the learned Trial Court.

(iv). This Court further takes note of that the further proceedings of Title Suit No.02/2017 was stayed vide the order dated 05.10.2021 by this Court. The said stay order stands vacated. Taking into account that all the parties in the suit are duly represented before this Court, they are, therefore, directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 09.04.2025.

(v). It is observed that on the said date i.e. 09.04.2025, the petitioners herein who are the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall produce the documents mentioned in paragraphs 11(T), 11(M), 11(O) and 11(V). On production of such documents, the learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in respect to the said documents and thereupon proceed with the disposal of the suit in accordance with law.

With the above, the revision petition stands disposed of.

Page No.# 6/6

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant