Back
GAHC010132742017 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/199/2017 NRIPENDRA CH. BARMAN S/O. LT. SADHAN CHANDRA BARMAN, R/O. VILL. ANDUR BER, P.S.
LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS MONIRAM BARMAN and 33 ORS.
S/O. LT. SUIA NATH BARMAN, 2:SRI KISHOR KUMAR BARMAN S/O. SRI MONDAL BARMAN
3:SRI KAMAL KUMAR BARMAN S/O. NIBARAN BARMAN
4:SRI RAMKRISHNA BARMAN S/O. LT. SADHU CHARAN BARMAN
5:SRI MONI BARMAN S/O. LT. HRIDAY BARMAN
6:SRI SURESH CHANDRA BARMAN S/O. LT. BIPIN CHANDRA BARMAN
7:SRI SANJIB BARMAN S/O. LT. NEPASHU BARMAN
8:SRI CHITTARANJAN BARMAN S/O. LT. SUIA NATH BARMAN
9:SRI GUNASWAR BARMAN S/O. LT. KHAGEN CHANDRA BARMAN
10:SRI HAREN BARMAN S/O. LT. BHASA RAM BARMAN
11:SRI INDRAJIT BARMAN S/O. LT. RUPKANTA BARMAN
12:SRI BIMAL CHANDRA BARMAN S/O. LT. KHAGEN CHANDRA BARMAN
13:SRI PABITRA BARMAN S/O. LT. KHAGEN CHANDR BARMAN
14:SRI ITA KUMAR BARMAN S/O. LT. KHAGEN CHANDRA BARMAN
15:SRI SHYMAL CHANDRA BARMAN S/O. LT. KHAGEN CHANDRA BARMAN
16:SRI JISHNU BARMAN S/O. LT. SRI KRISHNA BARMAN
17:SRI HIRA LAL BARMAN S/O. LT. SRI KRISHNA BARMAN 18:SRI ATUL KUMAR BARMAN S/O. BISKUT BARMAN
19:SRI SOKIR CHAND BARMAN S/O. BISKUT BARMAN
20:SRI NOBARAN BARMAN S/O. LT. BUDHIRAM BARMAN
21:SRI RAVI BARMAN S/O. SRI BARON BARMAN
22:SRI RABINDRA BARMAN S/O. SRI BARON BARMAN
23:SRI HRIDAYESHWAR BARMAN S/O. LT. JOGESWAR BARMAN 24:SRI BHADESWAR BARMAN S/O. LT. MOHANTA BARMAN
25:SRI MONORANJAN BARMAN S/O. SRI SURESH CHANDRA BARMAN
26:SRI BHAIROB BARMAN S/O. SRI SURESH CHANDRA BARMAN
27:SRI PROMAD BARMAN S/O. LT. JOGENDRA BARMAN
28:SRI GHUTUI RAM BARMAN S/O. SRI PURNA RAM BARMAN 29:SRI ANIL KUMAR BARMAN S/O. LT. KAMALA KANTA BARMAN
30:SRI PARIMAL BARMAN S/O. LT. LALMOHAN BARMAN
31:SRI ATUL BARMAN S/O. SRI SURESH CHANDRA BARMAN
32:SUBINDRA BARMAN S/O. SRI BABULAL BARMAN 33:SRI BAZRA LAL BARMAN S/O. LT. RAMTUN BARMAN 34:SRI JANJHALU BARMAN S/O. LT. NEPASHU BARMAN. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL. ANDUR BER P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.F INTAZ Advocate for the Respondent : MRA K RAIR-8 :: BEFORE ::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
['F INTAZ', '', 'M A SHEIKH', 'M HOSSAIN', 'K U AHMED', 'MRA K RAIR', '', 'T R ROYR']
O R D E R
20.12.2022 Heard the learned counsel Mr. M.A. Sheikh appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2017 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Goalpara in T.S. 10/2012.
In the said suit, the trial court framed 7 issues as under:
I. Whether there is any cause of action?
II. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner?
III. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
IV. Whether the plaintiff was occupying and cultivating the suit land since 1993 till he was evicted on
23.10.2011?
V. Whether villagers were using the suit land as crematorium for last 50 years?
VI. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled the other reliefs prayed for?
VII. To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled?
At this stage, paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment is q uoted as under:
“It is pertinent to mention here that before arriving at a just and reasonable decision, it is outmost important to discuss the issued no.(III) i.e., whether the suit is bad for non –joinder of necessary parties at first”.
Thereafter, the trial court held that Government of Assam is a necessary party in the suit and since it was not made a party, the suit is bad in law and ultimately the suit was dismissed.
Here, at this juncture, Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is relevant. It reads as under:
“5. Court to state its decision on each issue – In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit.”
Exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has committed an error by failing to decide all the issues. Therefore, the impugned judgment is bad in law and stands set aside accordingly.
The case is remanded to the trial court of Munsiff No.1, Goalpara for passing a fresh judgment on all issues after hearing oral arguments of both sides.
The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
