Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 589 (GAU)

Pritem Panggeng S/O Lt. Kakang Panggeng v. Karik Tayeng S/O Alum Tayeng

2023-05-18

NANI TAGIA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. R. C. Lowangcha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Though Ms. Lowangcha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for an adjournment, having regard to the fact that this revision petition is of the year 2018 and by virtue of the order passed by this Court on 25.07.2018, the title suit could not proceed further and also having taken note of the fact that this case has been adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner on 05.09.2022, 07.09.2022, 11.11.2022 and 23.03.2023, this revision petition is take up for final disposal on merit. 3. The order put to challenge in this writ petition is dated 19.02.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Eastern Zone, Pasighat, East Siang District in PSG Title Suit No. 01/2014, whereby, the title suit has been decided to proceed in the absence of the defendant for speedy disposal of the case. Also put to challenge is the order dated 25.06.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Eastern Zone, Pasighat, East Siang District in PSG I.A. No. 17/2018 in Title Suit No. 01/2014, declining to recall the order dated 19.02.2018, passed in PSG Title Suit No. 01/2014. 4. The facts leading to filing of the instant revision petition, briefly stated, are as under: According to the petitioner, after the death of his elder brother in the year 2010, when he had made enquiry about the ancestral properties, it was found that the respondent herein had bought the land measuring 45,000 Sq. Ft. located near the hospital of Ruksin from the petitioner’s late brother. On coming to know about this fact, the petitioner had approached the respondent not to cultivate in the aforesaid plot of land till the matter is resolved through Kebang. On being asked by the petitioner not to cultivate the land which he had bought from his late brother, the respondent as plaintiff had filed a Title Suit No.01/2014 before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Eastern Zone, Pasighat, East Siang District, against the petitioner, who was arrayed as a defendant in the Title Suit. On being asked by the petitioner not to cultivate the land which he had bought from his late brother, the respondent as plaintiff had filed a Title Suit No.01/2014 before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Eastern Zone, Pasighat, East Siang District, against the petitioner, who was arrayed as a defendant in the Title Suit. As the PSG Title Suit No. 01/2014 proceeded, the learned Additional District Judge Eastern Zone Pasighat by the impugned order dated 19.02.2018, passed in PSG Title Suit No. 01/2014, had decided to proceed with the title suit in the absence of the defendant for speedy disposal of the case on the repeated failure of the defendant/petitioner herein, to produce the defendant’s witnesses. On an Interlocutory application being PSG IA No. 17/2018 filed in PSG T. S. No. 01/2014 for recalling of the order dated 19.02.2018 passed in PSG T. S. No. 01/2014, the learned Additional District Judge, Eastern Zone Pasighat, vide yet another impugned order dated 25.06.2018 had declined to recall the earlier order dated 19.02.2018 passed in PSG T. S. No. 01/2014. 5. Assailing the aforesaid 2 (two) impugned orders, the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was never informed about the requirement of submission of a list of witnesses. The petitioner also contends that the judiciary was separated from the executive in the State in the year 2010 and as such, the separation of the Judiciary from the executive is at a very nascent stage and most of the tribal population of the State are not well versed with the nitty-gritties of the legal procedure and therefore, the learned trial court ought to have allowed the petitioner to produce his witnesses. 6. The respondent, on the other hand by filing a counter-affidavit, has contended that the petitioner was given an ample opportunity to produce his witnesses and it was on the repeated failure of the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit to produce his witnesses that the learned Trial Court decided to proceed with the title suit in the absence of the defendants and therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the 2 (two) orders which have been impugned, herein. 7. The contention raised by the rival parties have received due consideration by this Court and the materials available on record have been perused. 8. 7. The contention raised by the rival parties have received due consideration by this Court and the materials available on record have been perused. 8. On perusal of the impugned order dated 19.02.2018, passed in PSG T. S. No. 01/2014, it appears that the counsel, namely, T. Tamuk, who was representing the petitioner/defendant had withdrawn from the title suit. It further appears from the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 that the defendant in the suit was supposed to produce their witnesses after the plaintiff’s witnesses are cross-examined and discharged but the defendant failed to attend the Court. On failure to attend the Court, a notice was also issued to the defendant, which notice was kept with the village authority of the village as the defendant was not available. Thereafter, a notice was again served through the registered post and as per the track consignment it was shown that the notice had been delivered to the addressee. It was in the aforesaid circumstance that the learned Trial Court decided to proceed with the Title Suit in the absence of the defendant for speedy disposal of the case. 9. After the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2018 was passed as above, when the defendant had filed an Interlocutory Application registered as PSG IA No. 17/2018 in PSG T. S. No. 01/2014, praying for recalling of the order dated 19.02.2018, the said application of the defendant was disposed of by the impugned order dated 25.06.2018, passed in the Interlocutory Application, declining to recall the order dated 19.02.2018 passed in PSG T. S. No. 01/2014. 10. On perusal of the order dated 25.06.2018, it appears that the plaintiff’s witnesses were closed on 01.08.2017. After closure of the plaintiff’s witnesses on 01.08.2018, an opportunity to produce the defendant’s witnesses was given on 29.08.2017; 10.10.2017; 03.11.2017; 29.11.2017; 24.01.2018 and 19.02.2018. It may also be referred to herein that on 03.11.2017, when the matter was adjourned at the instance of the defendant, an adjournment cost of Rs. 500 was also imposed on the defendant. Despite the aforesaid opportunities given to the defendant for production of defendant’s witnesses on the dates mentioned above, the defendant who is the petitioner herein, failed to produce the defendant’s witnesses before the learned Trial Court. 500 was also imposed on the defendant. Despite the aforesaid opportunities given to the defendant for production of defendant’s witnesses on the dates mentioned above, the defendant who is the petitioner herein, failed to produce the defendant’s witnesses before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court after having taken note of the number of opportunities given to the defendant, vide the order dated 25.06.2018 has declined to recall the order dated 19.02.2018 passed in the PSG T. S. No. 01/2014. 11. From the above, it appears that since the plaintiff’s witnesses was closed on 01.08.2017, there remains no manner of doubt that the issue(s) for determination in the title suit was framed much before 01.08.2017. 12. It is a requirement in law as provided in Order-XVI Rule-I of the CPC that on or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court. 13. In view of the above position of law that parties are required to present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents on or before such date as the Court may appoint and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled and in the instant case, the issue(s) having been settled prior to 01.08.2017 and the Court had appointed various dates, mentioned above, for production of defendant’s witnesses and the petitioner/defendant having failed to produce defence witnesses on each of the dates appointed as mentioned hereinabove, I am of the view that no fault can be found either in the order dated 19.02.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Eastern Zone, Pasighat, East Siang District in PSG Title Suit No. 01/2014 or in the order dated 25.06.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Eastern Zone, Pasighat, East Siang District in PSG I. A. No. 17/2018 in Title Suit No. 01/2014. 14. The revision petition, accordingly, fails being devoid of merit. 15. Interim order passed earlier on 25.07.2018 and the subsequent extensions thereof, if any, stands vacated.