AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S.C. Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. R. Sumer, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mr. A.S. Siddiqui,
learned counsel for the respondents.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The petitioners are citizens of India being bothers who live together with their respective families at R.R. Colony, Shillong-6 within the jurisdiction
of this Honourable High Court and the respondent No. 1 is the highest body in the State of Meghalaya of the Communist Party of India and the
other respondents are all office bearers and members thereof as stated. The respondent No. 1 is the Leasehold owner of the Revenue Plot No.
143 at Jail Road, Shillong, under the Patta No. 144 dated 26.05.1971 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong and in one of the building of
that land the petitioners are carrying on their business as tenants under the respondents with an agreement executed in September, 1997 being in
subsistence which governs the tenancy. In the year 2011, the petitioners became highly apprehensive of being forcibly and illegally evicted by the
respondents from the said tenancy premises and as such, having no other option, the petitioners had filed the Title Suit No. 28 (H) of 2011 in the
Court of the Assistant District Judge, Shillong, against the respondents, for, inter-alia, declaration of the status as tenants and for a permanent
injunction to restrain the respondents from forcibly evicting the petitioners or disturbing their possession as tenants of the suit property. The
respondents duly enter appearance and contested the said Title Suit No. 28 (H) of 2011, by filing their joint written statement alongwith counter
claim. When the said Title Suit No. 28 (H) of 2011 reached the stage of adducing evidence for an on behalf of the plaintiffs, the petitioners as the
plaintiffs sought to produce as secondary evidence the copies of the said Patta No. 144 of 1971 and the agreement of September, 1997, but
objection were raised on behalf of the defendants whereupon the matter was heard and the Honourable Court below disallowed the production of
such copies in evidence by the impugned order dated 16.05.2016. That now being highly aggrieved by the said impugned order dated
16.05.2016, the petitioners have filed this instant Civil Revision Petition before this Honourable High Court.
The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners submits that he attempted to adduce secondary evidence, but the Court did not give him an
opportunity for the reasons best known to the Court.
In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that those documents were admitted by the respondents; therefore further adducing of
the secondary evidence is not necessary.
After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am constraint to agree with the submission made by Mr.
A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 is hereby set aside and the trial Court
concerned is directed to allow the petitioner to adduce secondary evidence.
The Registry is directed to send the Lower Court case record to the concerned Court along with a copy of this judgment and order.
With this observation and direction this instant petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.