Disposed

Shri Lal Bahadur Singh Chetri v. Krishna Singh

Gauhati HC6 Apr 2026CRP(IO)/529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A defendant challenged trial court orders dismissing his res judicata petition and rejecting his request for records of an earlier title suit over overlapping land. As both sides agreed verification of records was needed, the High Court quashed all impugned orders and remanded the matter to the trial court to call the records and decide afresh within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

All impugned orders set aside and quashed; matter remanded to trial court to call records and decide Petition No. 323/7 with a speaking order within four weeks.

Shri Lal Bahadur Singh Chetri Vs Krishna Singh — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010281742025

2026:GAU-AS:5246

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/529/2025

¶6

SHRI LAL BAHADUR SINGH CHETRI

¶7

S/O- LATE HARI SINGH CHETRI, RESIDENT OF LABACPAR PART-II, POILAPOOL, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

KRISHNA SINGH

¶10

W/O- DURGA SHANKAR SINGH, D/O- LATE DUDNATH SINGH CHETRI @ DUDHNATH SINGHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LALANGKITTA LABAKPAR PART-II, P.O.- PAILAPOOL, P.S.- LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788098

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, J MEDHI,R BORAH,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. R. KARIM,MS. N M LONGKENG

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM

¶13

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/470/2025

¶14

LAL BAHADUR SINGH CHETRI S/O LATE HARI SINGH CHERI R/O LABACPAR PART II POILAPOOL P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM.

¶15

Page No.# 2/7

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

SMTI KRISHNA SINGH W/O DURGA SHANKAR SINGH D/O LATE UDNATH SINGH CHETRI @ DUDHNATH SINGHA R/O VILL. LALANGKITTA LABAKPAR PART II P.O. PAILAPOOL P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788098

¶18

-----------Advocate for : MR. I H LASKAR Advocate for : MR. L R MAZUMDER appearing for SMTI KRISHNA SINGH

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶21

ORDER

¶22

07.04.2026

¶23

Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent, in both the Civil Revision Petitions.

¶24

2. It is to be noted here that in CRP(IO) No. 470/2025, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 21.12.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lakhipur, Cachar, in connection with Petition No. 323/7, in Title Suit No. 07/2020.

¶25

2.1 It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 21.12.2023, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lakhipur, Cachar, (hereinafter, learned Trial Court), has dismissed the petition No. 323/7, filed by the petitioner, by holding that the Title Suit is not barred by the principle of Res Judicata.

¶26

3. Further, in CRP(IO) No. 529/2025, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 11.02.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in Petition No. 132/8, in Title

¶27

Page No.# 3/7

¶28

Suit No. 07/2020; and the order, dated 01.08.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc. (C) Case No. 06/2025, in Title Suit No. 07/2020.

¶29

3.1 It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 11.02.2025, the learned Trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to call for certain important records in respect of previous litigations between the same parties, arising out of the same suit land.

¶30

4. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the principal defendant in Title Suit No. 07/2020 and he has filed one petition, being Petition No. 323/7, stating that said Title Suit No. 07/2020 is barred by the principle of Res judicata, as there was a previous title suit, being Title Suit No. 90/1992, between the same parties and also arising out of the present suit land and other lands and the findings of such previous litigations were recorded in favour of the present petitioner. But, the said petition of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court, vide impugned order, dated 21.12.2023, even without verifying the concerned record.

¶31

4.1 It is the further submission of Mr. Deka that the petitioner has also filed one petition in Title Suit No. 7/2020, being Petition No. 132/8, to call for certain judicial and other records in connection with the previous title suit, being Title Suit No. 90/1992; which was a suit between the same parties. But, said prayer of the petitioner for calling such vital records was rejected by the learned Trial Court, vide order, dated 11.02.2025, which is impugned in CRP(IO) No. 529/2025.

¶32

4.2 Mr. Deka also submits that the petitioner herein has also filed one Review Petition, upon which, Misc (C) Case No. 06/2025, in Title Suit No. 07/2020 was registered and the learned Trial Court has rejected the said petition, vide impugned order, dated 01.08.2025, and being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.

¶33

Page No.# 4/7

¶34

4.3 Mr. Deka, taking this Court to the prayers and Schedule-II of the plaint of the present Title Suit No. 7/2020, and to the plaint and Schedule-II of the earlier Title Suit No. 90/1992, and also the prayer portion and the Schedule-II of the said suit, submits that the Dag Number, Patta Number and description of the schedule land in both the suits are same, barring one or two descriptions of the boundary; and that, the learned Trial Court, without calling for the records of Title Suit No. 90/1992, has decided the petition No. 323/7 and also, the petition No. 132/8.

¶35

4.4 Referring to one decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr. (D) by L.Rs Appellants Vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others Respondents, reported in AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 1238, especially to paragraph Nos. 12 & 18; Mr. Deka submits that if the matter was in issue directly and substantially in a prior litigation and decided against a party then the decision would be res-judicata in a subsequent proceeding. And, judicial decisions have however, held that if a matter was only 'collaterally or incidentally' in issue and decided in an earlier proceeding, the finding therein would not ordinarily be res-judicata in the latter proceeding; and in the instant case, and the issue raised in the present suit is directly and substantially an issue in the earlier suit.

¶36

4.5 Referring to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi and Anr. Vs. Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors., reported in AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2352, especially in paragraph No. 12; Mr. Deka submits that if, bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the Court’s duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged.

¶37

4.6 Mr. Deka, further submits that though, the petitioner herein has filed an

¶38

Page No.# 5/7

¶39

application for calling the record of the earlier title suit, being Title Suit No. 90/1992, and some other records, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the same and decided the other petition without considering the record, and as such, the impugned order, dated 21.12.2023, in CRP(IO) No. 470/2025; and the impugned orders, dated 11.02.2025 and 01.08.2025, in CRP(IO) No. 529/2025; are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be set aside and quashed.

¶40

5. Per contra, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent in both the petitions submits that even though, the Dag Number, Patta Number and the description of the Schedule-II land, in Title Suit No. 07/2020 and Title Suit No. 90/1992, are same; yet, the boundaries in the western and the northern side are different in both the title suits and further, referring to Schedule-II of the plaint of the Title Suit No. 90/1992, he submits that in the said suit, the parcel of land involved was 9 Kathas and 7 Chataks, whereas, in the Title Suit No. 07/2020, the parcel of land was only 4 Kathas and the said 4 Kathas was different land from that of the 9 Kathas and 7 Chataks, as described in the Schedule-II of the Title Suit No. 90/1992.

¶41

5.1 However, Mr. Mazumdar submits that in order to ascertain as to whether, the 4 Kathas of land of the Title Suit No. 07/2020 was part of the 9 Kathas and 7 Chataks of land, in Schedule-II of the earlier Title Suit No. 90/1992, the same can be ascertained only after verification of the record and in that view of the matter, he has no objection in the event of interfering with the impugned orders in both the civil revision petitions and to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court to call for the record and to ascertain the facts and thereafter, to pass necessary order on the petition filed under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the petitioner herein.

¶42

6. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection if

¶43

Page No.# 6/7

¶44

such an order is being passed by this Court in both the civil revision petitions.

¶45

7. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order, dated 21.12.2023, passed in CRP(IO) 470/2025, and the impugned orders, dated 11.02.2025 and 01.08.2025, passed in CRP(IO) No. 529/2025; and also gone through the prayer portion and Schedule-II of the plaint of the Title Suit No. 07/2020, and also the prayer portion and Schedule-II of the plaint of the Title Suit No. 90/1992.

¶46

8. It is not in dispute that the Dag Number, Patta Number of the Schedule-II land are the same in both the petitions. However, perusal of the description of the boundary reveals that the northern and the western side are different. Further, the parcel of land is also different in Title Suit No. 07/2020, while the parcel of land is 4 Kathas in Title Suit No. 07/2020, in the earlier Title Suit No. 90/1992, the parcel of land is 9 Kathas and 7 Chataks; and whether, the 4 Kathas of land in Title Suit No. 07/2020, is the part of the 9 Kathas and 7 Chataks of land described in the Title Suit No. 90/1992, the same can only be ascertained after due verification of the record. And in that view of the matter and as agreed upon by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the civil revision petitions, by interfering with the impugned order, dated 21.12.2023, passed in CRP(IO) No. 470/2025 and the impugned orders, dated 11.02.2025 and 01.08.2025, passed in CRP(IO) No. 529/2025. Accordingly, all the impugned orders stands set aside and quashed.

¶47

9. The matter stands remanded to the learned Trial Court, with a direction to call for the records, as mentioned in the Petition No. 132/8 and thereafter, to hear both the parties and decide the Petition No. 323/7, by passing a speaking and seasoned order.

¶48

Page No.# 7/7

¶49

10. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶50

11. The parties of both the civil revision petitions are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court, with a certified copy of this order, on or before 08.05.2026.

¶51

12. In terms of the above, these two civil revision petitions stands disposed of.

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

Comparing Assistant

Shri Lal Bahadur Singh Chetri v. Krishna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Lal Bahadur Singh Chetri v. Krishna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Kutub Uddin Laskar Vs Muktarun Nessa Laskar and 3 Ors.

Chandan Paul Choudhury Alias Manoj Paul Choudhury Vs on the Death of Dibakar Mazumdar His Legal Heirs Smti Soma Mazumdar and Ors.

Smti. Bana Lata Devi and 6 Ors. Vs Md. Abdur Raquif @ Rakib Ali and 3 Ors.

Bana Lata Devi and 6 Ors. Vs on the Death of Abdur Raquif @ Rakib Ali His Legal Heirs Are Basir Uddin and 5 Ors.

Banalata Devi and Ors. Vs on the Death of Abdur Raquib and Musstt Akul Bibi Their Legal Heirs and Legal Representatives Are