Under the Indian Evidence Act, certified copies of official orders are sufficient to prove the contents of the orders, and official witnesses are not required.

JUDGMENT :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

Heard Mr. N Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Chakraborty, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. C. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9.

2. The petitioner filed T.S. No. 331/2010 in the court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. The suit was filed against the respondent No. 1 and its authorised agent. The suit was for permanent injunction. It is the claim of the plaintiff petitioner that the land she is possessing is the ceiling surplus land acquired from the defendant No. 1 Company. On the strength of possession and subsequent alleged khatian to Mr. Girindra Biswas and Mohitosh Nandi, the petitioner made separate arrangement with them and was possessing the suit land carrying out business thereon. Advocate notice was issued to the plaintiff petitioner for vacating the suit land following which the suit was filed against the defendant respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the said defendants respondents from entering into the suit land and interfering with the possession. Along with the said suit an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC was filed seeking for same relief in the temporary form as the one sought for in the plaint.

3. The learned court below upon motion issued summons to the respondents. On 19.08.2010 summons were issued with a direction to the defendants respondents to maintain the then status of the plaintiff's possession until further order. The suit land along with other land of the defendant respondent No. 1 company was charged by way of an equitable mortgage against the loan sanctioned by IDBI Bank. On default in liquidating the said loan the Bank filed Original Application No. 27/2002 and necessary certificate was issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati. On the basis of an application filed by the defendant respondent No. 2, vide order dated 12.10.2010 of the DRT the land under possession of the plaintiff petitioner was allowed to be attached. As per report of the recovery officer, DRT the suit land was attached on 12.07.2011. Upon such attachment the petitioner preferred WP(C) No. 4082/2011 impleading the various parties including the officials of the Tribunal, district administration etc. Vide order dated 12.08.2011 in the writ petition notice of motion was issued fixing 21.09.2011 as the returnable date with a direction to maintain status quo as regards to the possession over the land in question. Vide order dated 06.01.2012 the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that disputed facts were incorporated in the writ petition and adjudication of such matters were not warranted under the writ jurisdiction. While passing the said order the writ court observed further that the order of dismissal was without any prejudice to the petitioner. On 19.10.2012 the date for handing over the physical possession to the purchaser of suit land was re-fixed on 31.10.2012 with the assistance of the District Administration and the Revenue Officer. Vide order dated 31.10.2012 the physical possession of the suit land was handed over to its purchaser. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC in the learned court below which was registered as Misc case No. 688/2012. By way of said petition the petitioner sought for punishment of the opposite parties therein for violation of the order of status quo passed by the learned court below in T.S. No. 331/2010.

4. The present defendant respondent No. 1 filed objection against the said violation petition. In the said violation petition the DRT officials were also impleaded. In order to prove the fact of violation even after the knowledge on the part of the officials of the DRT, the petitioner took the leave to call for original case record of OA No. 27/2002 but Registrar of the said Tribunal informed the court that the said case record could not be sent, however, granted the liberty to the pla