Smti. Bina Kataki and 2 Ors. v. Smti. Lakhimi Enlengpi and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Apr 2026CRP(IO)/114/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

civil fair trial equal opportunity to present case; Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC furnishing/exhibition of documents after debarment order 11.12.2023; Order 13 Rule 10 CPC call for records affidavit specifying reasons; Article 227 Constitution + Section 151 CPC revision; Title Suit No. 1/2021 Civil Judge JD Hojai; records of T.S. No. 71/2016 judgment dated 13.08.2018 and Title Execution Case No. 12/2018; petitions 2532/2024 and 2533/2024 dismissed 07.01.2026; Gauhati High Court CRP(IO)/114/2026 Robin Phukan judge 06.04.2026; motion stage disposal; trial court order quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.01.2026 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai set aside and quashed; the revision petition disposed of at the motion stage itself. ¶¶41

Smti. Bina Kataki and 2 Ors. Vs Smti. Lakhimi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 07.01.2026 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai set aside and quashed; the revision petition disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.01.2026 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai dismissing Petition No. 2532/2024 (under Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 CPC) and Petition No. 2533/2024 (under Order 13 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC), arising out of Title Suit No. 1/2021, withstands legal scrutiny and warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 151 CPC.

¶¶38

Court's answer

Right to fair trial applies to civil cases also; it includes the right to equal opportunity for the parties to present their case. Denying the petitioners the ability to exhibit the original documents and to call for the records of Title Execution Case No. 12/2018 and T.S. No. 71/2016 would deprive them of the opportunity to present their case and consequently of their right to fair trial.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

This Court is unable to record concurrence with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order dated 07.01.2026 dismissing the two petitions.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The trial Court's objections were answered on the face of the record: the petitioners had assigned reasons in Petition No. 2532/2024, especially paragraphs 3 and 4, as to why the original documents could not be furnished, and stated in Petition No. 2533/2024 the reasons for which the records of Title Execution Case No. 12/2018 and T.S. No. 71/2016 were required; further, the two petitions were not seriously opposed by the respondents except a stand that they were filed belatedly.ratio¶¶36
The impugned order dated 07.01.2026 fails to withstand legal scrutiny and requires this Court's interference; accordingly, it stands set aside and quashed.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

GAUHATI HIGH COURT | CRP(IO)/114/2026 | Robin Phukan J | 06.04.2026 | Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 151 CPC. Petition No. 2532/2024 (under Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w S.151 CPC, to exhibit original/certified copies traced after the trial Court's debarment order dated 11.12.2023) and Petition No. 2533/2024 (under Order 13 Rule 10 r/w S.151 CPC, calling for records of T.S. No. 71/2016 and Title Execution Case No. 12/2018), arising out of Title Suit No. 1/2021 (plaintiffs: Bina Kataki and 2 Ors; defendants: Lakhimi Enlengpi and 4 Ors), were dismissed by the Civil Judge (JD), Hojai on 07.01.2026 on the grounds that the accompanying affidavit did not specify reasons and the preclusion order remained effective. Held (High Court): right to fair trial extends to civil cases and includes equal opportunity to present one's case; the petitioners had in fact assigned the requisite reasons in the petitions and the respondents' opposition was confined to belatedness; the trial Court's findings therefore failed legal scrutiny - impugned order set aside and quashed, and the revision disposed of at the motion stage.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010051172026

2026:GAU-AS:4970

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/114/2026

¶6

SMTI. BINA KATAKI AND 2 ORS W/O KHAGEN KATAKI, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. R, SHIB BARI ROAD, HOJAI, P.O. AND P.S. AND MOUZA- HOJAI, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM

¶7

2: BABU MUN KATAKI @ BABU KATAKI S/O KHAGEN KATAKI RESIDENT OF WARD NO. R SHIB BARI ROAD HOJAI P.O. AND P.S. AND MOUZA- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM 3: PANKAJ KATAKI S/O KHAGEN KATAKI RESIDENT OF WARD NO. R SHIB BARI ROAD HOJAI P.O. AND P.S. AND MOUZA- HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSA

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SMTI. LAKHIMI ENLENGPI AND 4 ORS

¶10

W/O LATE HARSING TISSO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KALANGA, P.S.KHERONI, P.O.- KALANGA, DIST- WEST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM

¶11

2:PRATIMA TISSOPI D/O LATE HARSING TISSO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KALANGA P.S.- KHERONI P.O.- KALANGA DIST- WEST KARBI ANGLONG

¶12

Page No.# 2/6

¶13

ASSAM

¶14

3:DURMI TISSOPI D/O LATE HARSING TISSO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KALANGA P.S.- KHERONI P.O.- KALANGA DIST- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM

¶15

4:JANGMI TISSOPI D/O LATE HARSING TISSO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KALANGA P.S.- KHERONI P.O.- KALANGA DIST- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM

¶16

5:SARNONGPH TISSOPI S/O LATE HARSING TISSO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KALANGA P.S.- KHERONI P.O.- KALANGA DIST- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B CHANDA, MR BASAB DEY,MR S.K. KASHYAP

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 06.04.2026

¶22

Heard Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.01.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai, in petition No. 2532/2024 and 2533/2024, filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Section

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

151 CPC and under Order 13 Rule 10, read with Section 151 CPC, respectively, arising out of Title Suit No. 1/2021.

¶26

It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 07.01.2026, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hojai (‘trial Court’, for short) has dismissed both the petitions.

¶27

Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, as plaintiff, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 1/2021, for declaration of right, title, interest and permanent injunction, against the respondents herein, and in the said title suit, the petitioners had referred to certain documents, such as- (i) agreement of sale executed between the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and predecessor of the respondents, (ii) judgment dated 13.08.2018, passed in T.S. No. 71/2016, which is an earlier title suit between the predecessor of the petitioners and the respondents and, (iii) the petition filed in Title Execution Case No. 12/2018. Mr. Chanda also submits that the petitioners had annexed the photocopies of those three documents with their plaint and the copies of the said documents were also served upon the respondent/defendants. He also submits that thereafter, the respondents, on receipt of summon, entered appearance before the learned trial Court and filed their written statement on 29.04.2022, and thereafter, the case was posted for submission of original documents. Mr. Chanda also submits that however, the petitioners could not furnish the original documents on account of the same being misplaced and could not be traced out despite best effort, and thereafter, the learned trial Court was pleased to pass an order debarring the petitioners from submitting those documents in the said case, and thereafter, the case was posted for steps before peremptory hearing (SPBH). Mr. Chanda further submits that subsequently, when the case was fixed for filing of evidence-in-chief on

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

affidavit by the P.W.s, the petitioners having been able to trace out the original/certified copies of the documents, had filed an application for allowing them to exhibit those documents in their evidence-in-affidavit, being petition No. 2532/2024, and also filed another petition, being petition No. 2533/2024, to call for the records of T.S. No. 71/2016 and Title Execution Case No. 12/2018, which are necessary for adjudication of the Title Suit No. 1/2021. However, the learned trial Court had arbitrarily, and illegally, dismissed both the petitions, and on such count, Mr. Chanda submits that the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, is liable to be interfered with.

¶30

Having heard the submission of Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 07.01.2026.

¶31

It appears that the learned trial Court has dismissed the petition filed under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC on the ground that although an affidavit had been submitted with the petition, but the same did not specify as to why the certified copies of the case records could not be submitted, and further, in the petition, it has been mentioned that original case records were necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, and it had not been specified as to why the same were necessary, and that the language of the provision clearly mandates an affidavit specifying reasons for application for calling for record.

¶32

Further, while dismissing the petition under Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Section 151 CPC, the learned trial Court has observed that the petitioners had been specifically precluded from filing any documents in the instant case, vide order dated 11.12.2023, and considering that the order dated 11.12.2023, is still effective and has not been set aside, the Court cannot allow submission of

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

any documents by the petitioners at that stage, and thereafter, dismissed the said petition.

¶35

The findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court, in the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, while examined in the light of the reasons given in the petition under Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Section 151 CPC and also in the petition under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC, and also in the light of the submission advanced by Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is unable to record concurrence with the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court.

¶36

It also appears that the petitioners had assigned the reasons in petition No. 2532/2024, especially in paragraphs 3 and 4, as to why the original documents could not be furnished, and also in petition No. 2533/2024, the reasons for which the records of Title Execution Case No. 12/2018 and T.S. No. 71/2016, are required. It further appears that the said two petitions were not seriously opposed by the respondents herein except, however, taking a stand that the same were filed belatedly.

¶37

It is to be noted here that right to fair trial applies to civil cases also. It includes right to equal opportunity to the parties to present their case. If the petitioners herein have been denied to exhibit the original documents, and to call for the records of Title Execution Case No. 12/2018 and T.S. No. 71/2016, then the petitioners herein would be deprived of the opportunity to present their case and consequently, deprived of their right to fair trial.

¶38

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 07.01.2026, fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and on such count, the same requires interference of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

dated 07.01.2026, stands set aside and quashed.

¶41

In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Smti. Bina Kataki and 2 Ors. v. Smti. Lakhimi Enlengpi and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti. Bina Kataki and 2 Ors. v. Smti. Lakhimi Enlengpi and 4 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

Md. Harunlal Rashid Vs MD Rekibul Zamal and 5 Ors.

Musstt. Nurija Begum Mazumder Vs on the Death of Md. Alim Uddin, His Legal Heirs Namely

Laxmi Kant Sharma and Anr. Vs Atlanta International and 2 Ors.

Marsanen Ozukum and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Kavito Yepthomi and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Kutub Uddin Laskar Vs Muktarun Nessa Laskar and 3 Ors.