Sri Punya Deo Mishra and Anr v. On the Death of Dwarika Prasad Brahmin,

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010091462009 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP/9/2009o SRIoPUNYAoDEOoMISHRAoandoANR.o S/OoLATEoRAMoNARESHoMISHRAoDEPOToROAD,oKOKRAJHAR,oWARDoNO.o 4,oP.S.-oKOKRAJHAR,oDIST.-oKOKRAJHAR,oASSAM. 2:oSRIoKAJALoDHAR oS/OoLATEoDWIJENDRAoLALoDHARoPROPRIETORoOFoM/SoAoNCHALo READYMADEoGARMENT.oDEPOToROAD oKOKRAJHAR oWARDoNO.o4 oR/OoTENGAPARA oKOKRAJHARoTOWN oWARDoNO.o5 oP.S.oKOKRAJHAR oDIST.-oKOKRAJHAR oASSAMo VERSUSo ONoTHEoDEATHoOFoDWARIKAoPRASADoBRAHMIN,o HISoLEGALoHEIRS

1.1:SMToSULACHANAoDEVIoSHARMA oW/OoLATEoDWARIKAoPRASADoBRAHMINo R/OoKOKRAJHARoTOWN oJ.D.oROADo(DEPOToROAD) oWARDoNO.o4 oP.O.oANDoP.S.-oKOKRAJHAR oDISTRICT-oKOKRAJHARo(BTAD) oASSAM.

1.2:SRIoVIVEKoSHARMA oS/OoLATEoDWARIKAoPRASADoBRAHMINo R/OoKOKRAJHARoTOWN oJ.D.oROADo(DEPOToROAD) Page No.# 2/4 WARD NO. 4 P.O. AND P.S.- KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR (BTAD) ASSAM.

1.3:SRI AJAY KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMIN R/O KOKRAJHAR TOWN J.D. ROAD (DEPOT ROAD) WARD NO. 4 P.O. AND P.S.- KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR (BTAD) ASSAM.

1.4:SRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMIN C/O-SOHI VILLA VISHWAKARMA PARK 2ND FLOOR NEAR SHAKARPUR POLICE STATION LAKSHMI NAGAR DELHI-110092.

1.5:SMT ANJU SHARMA D/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMIN AND W/O SRI UTTAM SHARMA R/O URIUM GHAT ROAD SARUPATHER (NEAR APEX BANK) P.O. AND P.S.- SARUPATHER DISTRICT-GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

1.6:SMT KUSUM DEVI SHARMA D/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD BRAHMIN AND W/O LATE JAGADISHWAR LAL SHARMA R/O JALAKPARA ROAD DIBRUGARH P.O AND P.S-DIBRUGARH DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B DAS Advocate for the Respondent : D MAZUMDAR

Page No.# 3/4 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R

11.06.2024

Heard Mr. G. Baishya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appears or the respondent on call.

¶2This is an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kokrajhar in Misc. (J) Case No.02/2008 arising out of Title Suit No.03/2007.

¶3The short question that is involved in this revision is-when an order under Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed by a civil court.

¶4Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: "2. Power to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination.

(1) Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent.

(2) Such attendance shall be in Court, unless the deponent is exempted from personal appearance in Court or the Court otherwise directs."

¶5Whenever a party to a suit wants to prove a particular thing by filing an affidavit, then only the other side is entitled to cross-examine him.

¶6In the case in hand, the petitioner(s) filed their pleadings supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the other party is not entitled to cross-examine him on the basis of the said affidavit. The party which filed pleadings, is to prove his pleadings by adducing evidence and at that time, the other party shall have the opportunity to Page No.# 4/4 cross-examine the said party.

¶7The learned court below has erroneously interpreted the provisions of law as contained in Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and stands set aside.

¶8The trial court is directed to dispose of the Misc. (J) Case No.02/2008 expeditiously in accordance with the provision as laid down by law. The revision petition is disposed of. The interim order passed earlier, stands vacated. Send back the LCR.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant