GAHC010184752024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : CRP(IO)/346/2024

GUNINDRA SARMA @ GUNIN SARMA AND 4 ORS

SON OF LATE ARUN SARMA,

PRESIDENT, NAGAON RASH COMMITTEE,

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGAON, MOUZA- NAGAON, P.S.- BARPETA,

DISTRICT- BARPETA, ASSAM.

2: KULENDRA DEKA

SON OF LATE GIRIN DEKA

MEMBER

NAGAON RASH COMMITTEE

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGAON

MOUZA- NAGAON

P.S.- BARPETA

DISTRICT- BARPETA

ASSAM.

3: DINESH PATHAK

SON OF LATE NAWRAM PATHAK

ADVISER

NAGAON RASH COMMITTEE

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGAON

MOUZA- NAGAON

P.S.- BARPETA

DISTRICT- BARPETA

ASSAM.

4: PRADIP DAS SON OF LATE TARUN DAS MEMBER NAGAON RASH COMMITTEE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGAON MOUZA- NAGAON P.S.- BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM.

5: KALINDRA DEKA SON OF LATE KRISHNA KANTA DEKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGAON MOUZA- NAGAON P.S.- BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS HARMOHAN PATHAK SON OF LATE CHANARAM PATHAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAGAON, MOUZA- NAGAON, P.S.- BARPETA, DISTRICT BARPETA (ASSAM)

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VIP ROAD, MILAN NAGAR, MOUZA- DAKSHIN RANI, P.O.- AZARA SO, P.S.- AZARA (AIRPORT), DISTRICT- KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM, PIN- 781017.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P S DEKA, MS. A CHAKRABARTY,MS B LAHKAR,MR B S DEKA,MR. B K BHAGAWATI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N N JHA , MS M SAHOO,MR. M UDDIN BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

Date : 05.12.2025

1. Heard Mr. P. S. Deka, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. K. Bhagawati, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. N. Jha, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners impugning the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Barpeta in Title Suit No. 60/2017 by which the prayer for adjournment sought for by the defendant, Ghanashyam Talukdar was rejected and the said Title Suit was fixed for argument on the next date.

3. The present petitioners have also impugned the order dated 26.07.2024 to the extent of rejecting the prayer of the newly impleaded defendants, namely, Gunindra Sarma and Kulendra Deka to adduce evidence though their prayer for impleadment, as defendants, under Order 1 Rule 10(2)

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by the first impugned order, the Trial Court mainly rejected the prayer for adjournment on the ground that no medical document was submitted by the defendant, Ghanashyam Talukdar. However, he submits that the Trial Court did not record any finding that the defendant was not facing severe health problems as was averred in the adjournment application.

5. He further submits that the Trial Court also erred in mentioning the name of the substituted defendant No. 7 as Kulendra Deka @ Kalindra Deka, in as much as, Kulendra Deka and Kalindra Deka are the names of different persons with different fathers’ name. He further submits that Kulendra Deka was not a party to the suit at the first instance, only Kalindra Deka was arrayed as defendant No. 7 in the plaint. He further submits that there was no prayer in the application made under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to strike out the name of Kalindra Deka as defendant No. 7, however, the Trial Court erred in striking out the name of Kalindra Deka, while allowing the impleadment prayer by Kulendra Deka.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Trial Court also erred in mentioning the name of newly impleaded defendant No. 7 as Kulendra Deka @ Kalindra Deka in the impugned order without any basis for the same. He further submits that the suit land has been in adverse possession of the Nagaon Rash Committee since 1936 and in the Title Suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendants have filed written statement along with the counter claim wherein they have prayed for a declaration of right, titl