Gauhati High Court
Hemendra Nath Dutta vs Smti Bharati Devi And 2 Ors on 3 August, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010147692026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RSA/104/2026
HEMENDRA NATH DUTTA
S/O LATE NARAYAN CH. DUTTA, R/O M.C. ROAD, UZAN BAZAR, P.S.-
LATASIL, GUWAHATI- 781001, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
SMTI BHARATI DEVI AND 2 ORS.
W/O LATE KAMAL CH. BHATTACHARYA, RESIDENT OF NABAGRAHA
ROAD, CHENIKUTHI, GUWAHATI- 781003, P.S.- LATASIL, DISTRICT-
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:MRIDUL CH. BHATTACHARYYA
S/O LATE KAMAL CH. BHATTACHARYA
RESIDENT OF NABAGRAHA ROAD
CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI- 781003
P.S.- LATASIL
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:NILIMOY BHATTACHARYYA
S/O LATE KAMAL CH. BHATTACHARYA
RESIDENT OF NABAGRAHA ROAD
CHENIKUTHI
GUWAHATI- 781003
P.S.- LATASIL
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : S ALI, MS. J SARMA,G IMTIAZ,MR. N BHARALI,MR. A
IKBAL,MR. R BARUAH
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. SAILENDRA DEKA (FOR CAVEATOR), MS. F L MIZO (FOR
CAVEATOR),MR JITENDRA DAS (FOR CAVEATOR)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 03.08.2026
Heard Mr. S. Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. appellants. Also
heard Mr. J. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The Regular Second Appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following substantial
questions of law :-
“i. Whether secondary evidence can be allowed to lead in absence of laying down the
factual foundation either in the pleadings or in the evidence under the provisions of
Section 65 (c) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to claim and establish the right to
adduce secondary evidence?
ii. Whether the first appellate court was legally justified in borrowing and adopting the
Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2001 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati (Exhibit-8) passed in Case No.144 m/2001 under Sections 145/146 of the
Cr.P.C. in deciding Issue Nos.VII and IX with regard to delivery of possession and
possession against the settled principle of law that Civil Court is not bound to follow
the decision of Criminal Court?
iii. Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the first appellate court is illegal and
perverse in disbelieving the positive and cogent evidence adduced by the P.W.1
(plaintiff), P.W.2 (vendor), P.W.3 and P.W.4 with regard to delivery of possession of the
suit land and possession thereof by the plaintiff?
iv. Whether the first appellate court committed total non-compliance of mandatory
provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by not deciding the
issues considering the materials on record as well as the evidence independently?”
Page No.# 3/3
No formal notice is required to be sent to the respondents as because Mr. J. Das have
entered appearance on behalf of the said respondents. However, extra copies of the Memo of
Appeal shall be provided to him during the course of the day.
Also call for the Trial Court records.
List after four weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
