| |
CDJ 2026 THC 025
|
| Court : High Court of Tripura |
| Case No : CRP No. 39/2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO |
| Parties : Mayarun Nessa, wife of Lt. Masuk Mia, Tripura Versus Md. Maklichu Rahaman, Tripura & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Sujata Deb (Gupta), Advocate. For the Respondent: Pranabashis Majumder, Varsha Poddar, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 07-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
| Civil Procedure Code - Order XVI Rule 1(3) - |
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Order XVI of CPC
- Order XVI Rule 1(3) of CPC
2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- witness
- summons
- revision
- decree
- partition
3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a revision against the Civil Judge’s order dated 19.03.2025 in a suit seeking declaration that a prior decree was fraudulently obtained and to obtain possession of land. The suit, initially dismissed for default, was restored on 07.02.2024. During the suit, the petitioner applied to summon two registrars as witnesses to produce specific birth and death register entries, invoking Order XVI of the CPC. The trial court rejected the application, noting it was filed six years after suit commencement and the witnesses were not listed in the original witness schedule, invoking Order XVI Rule 1(3). On revision, the court held that the petitioner could obtain certified copies of the registers without summoning the registrars and affirmed the trial court’s discretion. Consequently, the revision was found without merit and dismissed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. This Revision is preferred against the order dt.19.03.2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in case No. Civil Misc. 25 of 2025 arising out of T.S. No.10 of 2019.
2. The petitioner in this Revision is the plaintiff in the said suit. She filed the said suit to declare that a judgment and decree dt.22.12.2016 and final decree dt.01.02.2017 in T.S.(Partition) No.03 of 2016 was obtained fraudulently without issuing notice or summons to the petitioner and including another person who was not a legal heir of Late Konu Kha alias Konu Sa and that it does not bind the petitioner and is liable to be cancelled, and also sought possession of the suit schedule land as a joint owner until partition lawfully.
3. The suit was initially dismissed for a default but was later restored on 07.02.2024.
4. In the course of the proceedings in the suit, the petitioner wanted to examine a witness, who is the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Dhupirbond Gram Panchayat, who was to produce a Death and Birth Register of the year 2019 with a particular registration number and another witness, who is the Registrar of Births and Deaths, P.O.-Krishnapur, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, who was to produce the Death and Birth Register for the year 1996 pertaining to an Entry dt.24.04.1996 by invoking Order XVI of CPC. Petitioner sought a direction to summon the said witnesses and also direct them to produce the said registers.
5. The application was opposed by the respondents.
6. The trial Court dismissed the application stating that this application was filed 6(six) years after filing of the suit and under Order XVI Rule 1(3) of CPC, it is the discretion of the Court to permit a party to call any witness whose name was not enlisted in the initial list of witnesses, there is no reasonable ground to exercise such power at this point of time, particularly even the names of these persons were not shown in the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner.
7. Challenging the said order, this Revision is filed.
8. In my opinion, petitioner can certainly obtain certified copies of the entries in the respective registers which are in the custody of the proposed witnesses and file them in the Court. It is not necessary to call the persons having custody of the said registers as witnesses. As rightly held by the trial Court, the persons who were sought to be summoned were not mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner and six years after filing of the suit, it cannot be said that it is necessary that they ought to be summoned.
9. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revision. It is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
|
| |
