Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 105 (GAU)

Md. Abdul Ahad v. Union Of India

2020-01-31

MANOJIT BHUYAN, PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2020
JUDGMENT P.K. Deka, J. - Heard Mr. A H Alamgir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G Hazarika, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. B Das, learned standing counsel for Election Commission appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. A Kalita, learned standing counsel Foreigners Tribunal appearing for the respondent Nos. 3,5 and 6 and Ms. A Verma, learned standing counsel for the NRC appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. This review application is against the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 6058/2018. The order under review and the relevant portion is reproduced hereinbelow: '4. We have perused the lower courts record and perused the exhibits. At first we perused the Exhibit-4, Kabin Nama wherein we found that the word 'Mannan' against the name of the projected father of the petitioner is found to be overwritten. The said Exhibit-4 is private document and the same is not a registered deed the petitioner ought to have called the writer to prove the same but the name of the writer is missing in the said Exhibit-4. The sale deeds, Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3, no doubt shows the names of two purchasers including the projected father of the petitioner but mere production of the said documents without proving the contents is not sufficient inasmuch as at least a duty is cast upon the petitioner to bring in some preponderance of probability by adducing cogent evidence supporting the fact that a plot of land existed and the same was transferred by the vendor to one Abdul Mannan, the projected father of the petitioner along with his projected brother. The Tribunal rightly discarded the said contents of the Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3. The analysis on the basis of the age recorded in the voter lists, Exhibits 5,6,7 and 8 is a factor to be considered inasmuch as if on the basis of the age recorded of a particular person in 6 (six) voter lists brings to a conclusion which does not show a proportionate increase in the age on a particular person, the said factor can definitely be considered moreso, when the petitioner failed to establish the link with the projected father on the basis of other piece of evidence. The appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, cannot be termed to be wrong appreciation of the evidence on record and as such we find no merit in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed.' 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought for review of the said order with a prayer for scientific DNA test for the proof of paternity for the satisfaction of the petitioner as well as the court and the Registry may be directed arranging the DNA test. The other submission on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner is victim of contributory negligence and ignorance on the part of the engaged Lawyer who did not take proper steps in the Tribunal and the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer due to the fault of his counsel. The rest of the grounds are in respect of re-appreciation of the evidence which the Tribunal had already appreciated and the aforesaid findings arrived at by this court while disposing of the writ petition. Mr. A Kalita on the other hand objected to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the grounds are not within the narrow scope of the review jurisdiction and accordingly, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel. While passing the impugned order under review, the materials placed before this court and the documents which were exhibited as per the Lower Courts records were perused. The appreciation of evidence by this court at the time of passing the order cannot be entered into until and unless the petitioner is successful in pointing out that the same led to perversity. The petitioner failed to show that owing to perversity there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order. Seeking for DNA test in order to consider the opinion of the Tribunal is outside the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. For the said reason, we are unable to accept the grounds stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and entertain this review application, which stands dismissed accordingly.