Sudip Ranjan Sen, J.:-

Heard Mr. Satyen Sarma, learned coun­sel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff. None appeared on behalf of the respondents/de­fendants, though the record speaks that A/D for them have returned after service.

2. The appellant has approached this Court by way of an appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment & De­cree dated 20.06.2006 passed in the Money Suit No. 18 of 2004 by the Court of the Ad­ditional District Judge, Jorhat.

3. The appeal memo discloses that the appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2006 in Money Suit No. 18/2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat, has preferred this Appeal on the ground that the learned Court below has passed the judgment and decree without appreciating both the facts and law. Hence this appeal.

4. The matter came up for hearing on 06.02.2012 before this Division Bench.

Mr. S. Sarma submitted that the learned Court below simply dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that a translated copy of the news item in the "Amar Asom" dated 13.06.2000 had been produced and the origi­nal thereof had not been proved.

5. The lea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document