Disposed¶30

Himangshu Patowary v. Smti Arati Talukdar and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2026CRP(IO)/213/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; CRP(IO); Gauhati High Court; Title Suit No. 5/2015; furnishing of documents annexed to plaint; missing copies of bank account in list of exhibits; petition No. 1880/2026; rejection of prayer; closure of right to file written statement; no categorical finding by trial court; direction to respondents to furnish documents; short date for written statement; Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2 Kamrup(M) Guwahati; decided 08.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to furnish to the petitioner the copies of bank account relied upon by them, and thereafter the trial court may fix a short date for filing the written statement by the petitioner. ¶30

Himangshu Patowary Vs Smti Arati Talukdar and 3 Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 02.04.2026, which rejected the defendant's prayer for furnishing the copies of bank account listed among the plaintiff's documents and foreclosed the filing of the written statement, could stand when it made no categorical finding on the alleged non-furnishing of those copies.

¶28

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 02.04.2026 contains no categorical finding on the point of non-furnishing of the copies of bank accounts, nor a finding that the defendant withheld the written statement despite receiving the bank accounts, yet the trial court proceeded to fix the case for hearing on the next day.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Because the next date of the suit was fixed for the following day (09.06.2026), the Court held that issuing notice at that stage would unnecessarily further delay the already-delayed trial, and therefore disposed of the revision by direct direction instead.

¶29

Key takeaways

The revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish to the petitioner the copies of bank account relied upon by them, whereafter the trial court may fix a short date for filing the written statement by the petitioner.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.), disposing of a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (CRP(IO)/213/2026, decided 08.06.2026) against the order dated 02.04.2026 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 5/2015. The trial court had rejected the defendant's application (registered as petition No. 1880/2026) seeking a direction to the plaintiff to furnish copies of bank account listed among the exhibits, the documents having been furnished on 06.01.2026 pursuant to repeated court directions. Holding that the impugned order made no categorical finding on the non-furnishing of the copies of bank accounts and no finding that the written statement was withheld despite receipt, and that issuing notice would further delay a trial already fixed to 09.06.2026, the High Court disposed of the revision directing the respondents to furnish the copies of bank account relied upon by them, following which the trial court may fix a short date for filing the written statement.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010108412026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/213/2026

¶5

HIMANGSHU PATOWARY

¶6

SON OF LATE SANTIRAM PATOWARY, RESIDENT OF BAPUJI NAGAR, P.OSARTHEBARI, DISTRICT - BARPETA ASSAM, PIN NO -781307

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SMTI ARATI TALUKDAR AND 3 ORS. DAUGHTER OF LATE BASHANTA KUMAR TALUKDAR, RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT), KASTURBA ASHRAM, SOUTH SARANIA, P.O.ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN- 781007

¶9

2:SMTI NIBHA TALUKDAR DAUGHTER OF LATE BASHANTA KUMAR TALUKDAR RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT) KASTURBA ASHRAM SOUTH SARANIA P.O.- ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781007

¶10

3:SMTI HIRAMONI TALUKDAR DAUGHTER OF LATE BASHANTA KUMAR TALUKDAR RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT) KASTURBA ASHRAM SOUTH SARANIA P.O.- ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN- 781007

¶11

4:KASHYAP MEDHI

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

SON OF NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO-1 (RIGHT) KASTURBA ASHRAM SOUTH SARANIA P.O.- ULUBARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM PIN- 78100

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DAS,

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 08.06.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 02.04.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 5/2015, whereby the prayer for furnishing copies of bank account which was found missing in the bunch of documents furnished to the defendant side by the plaintiff side after the direction of the trial court was rejected and the suit was fixed for evidence of PWs/hearing of Petition No. 83/26 filed by the plaintiff side.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially when the defendant received the copy of the plaint, he was not furnished with the documents which were annexed along with the plaint and the trial court directed the plaintiff to furnish the same to the defendant. Thereafter, on

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

subsequent four occasions, the plaintiff failed to comply with the directions of the trial court in furnishing the documents which were annexed in the plaintiff. He further submits that ultimately on 06.01.2026, some copies of documents were furnished to the present petitioner by the plaintiff side and the particulars of the documents annexed were indicated that the bunch of said documents furnished to the present petitioner contained a copy of will, bank account, photocopy of medical document of GMCH, a photo of a house built by the plaintiff's sister, photocopy of documents of different hospitals, photo of opposite party living with his new wife.

¶24

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though on 6^th January, 2026, the present petitioner received the said documents, however, later on he found that the copies of bank account mentioned in the list of exhibits has not been furnished to the present petitioner and accordingly on the next date fixed i.e., on 02.04.2026, this fact was brought to the notice of the trial court by filing an application by the present petitioner i.e., it was registered as petition No. 1880/2026 requesting the trial court to direct the plaintiff to furnish the aforementioned documents (copies of bank account). However, the trial court by the impugned order had rejected the said prayer and also closed the opportunity of filing written statement by the defendant (present petitioner).

¶25

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner would be highly prejudiced if his right to file written statement is foreclosed by the trial court without furnishing all the documents which were relied upon by the plaintiff in his plaint.

¶26

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 02.04.2026, it appears that though the trial court had observed therein that on 06.01.2026, the copies of documents were furnished to the present petitioner, however, there is no categorical finding as regards the point which was brought to the notice of the trial court regarding non-furnishing of the copies of bank accounts. The trial court did not came to a finding in the impugned order that in spite of receiving the bank accounts which he claims to not have received no written statement has been filed, it proceeded to fix the case for hearing on the next day.

¶29

8. Since the next date of the suit is fixed tomorrow, i.e., on 09.06.2026, this court is of considered opinion that issuance of notice at this stage would unnecessarily cause further delay to already delayed trial in the aforesaid case.

¶30

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as considering the facts that there is no categorical observation in the impugned order regarding receipt of copies of bank account by the present petitioner as well as considering other attending circumstances of this case, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish the copies of bank account which is relied upon by them to the present petitioner and thereafter the trial court may fix a short date for filing written statement by the present petitioner.

¶31

10. With the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of.

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Himangshu Patowary v. Smti Arati Talukdar and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himangshu Patowary v. Smti Arati Talukdar and 3 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

M/S Tirupati Udyog Vs Dilip Haloi

Shumar Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kamakhaya Nath Vs the State of Assam

The Managing Director and 2 Ors. Vs MD Habibur Rahman

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Deep Shikha Roy Kar and 4 Ors.

Sadhan Paul Vs Anowaruddin Wakf Estate and Anr.