[ad_1]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs M/S Brahmaputra Technologies And 4 Ors on 19 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010110822025
2025:GAU-AS:10988
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/196/2025
M/S VAISHNO DEVI TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED
ITS DIRECTOR YOUDHITRA BHAMA AND BALWAN BHAMA, HOUSE NO.
35-A, BANGAON, NEAR INCOME TAX RESIDENTIAL COLONY, BELTOLA,
GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781028 AND ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT N.H 37, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, INDIA-781028
VERSUS
M/S BRAHMAPUTRA TECHNOLOGIES AND 4 ORS.
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT SILVER SQUARE,
5TH FLOOR, CHRISTIAN BASTI, P.S.- DISPUR, G.S ROAD, GUWAHATI-
781005 (ASSAM) AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI PRITOMJIT
HAZARIKA, S/O LATE NIRIKAR HAZARIKA, R/O RATNA PEETH, NEAR
RIVERSIDE, UZANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-781001, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:PRITOMJIT HAZARIKA
PARTNER OF M/S BRAHMAPUTRA TECHNOLOGIES
S/O LATE NIRIKAR HAZARIKA
R/O RATNA PEETH
NEAR RIVERSIDE
UZANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:PRISM ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT
1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF
BUSINESS AT 13 MILE
TAMULKUCHI
BYRNIHAT-793101
Page No.# 2/11
DIST- RIBHOI
MEGHALAYA AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI NARESH KRO
4:CANARA BANK
A BODY INCORPORATE AND DULY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING
COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT
1970
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT 112
J.C ROAD
BANGLORE-560002 DOING THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AT DIVERSE
PLACE ALL OVER INDIA AND IN PARTICULAR BRANCH OFFICE AT FANCY
BAZAR BRANCH
DUGAR BUILDING
HEM BARUAH ROAD
FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI-1
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM-781001 AND ISS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
5:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.
REGISTERED OFFICE - NEDFI HOUSE
G.S. ROAD
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781007
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS N SAIKIA, MR M Z RAHMAN,MRS. P GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CANARA BANK, MR. N BARUAH(R-2),MR. K N
CHOUDHURY (R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
19.08.2025
Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.N.
Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel
for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
Page No.# 3/11
2. In this revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner,
namely, M/S Vaishno Devi Traders Private Limited, has challenged the order
dated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Guwahati, (hereinafter- Tribunal) in I.A No. 724/2024 of SA No.
107/2019, filed by the petitioner for placing on record a compilation of 20
documents of which 8 documents were new and 12 documents were
already on record, was dismissed.
3. Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is the 3rd party auction purchaser of the auction property carried out by the
Canara Bank i.e. Proforma Respondent no. 4 herein. She also submits that
the respondent No. 1 and 2 had defaulted in their loan taken from Proforma
Respondent No. 4 and 5. Accordingly, an auction notice was issued by
Proforma Defendant No. 4, wherein the petitioner took part in the auction
and paid Rs. 6,11,00,000/- to the Proforma Defendant No. 4 against the
auction property, and the Proforma Defendant No. 4 confirmed the sale via
Sale certificate dated 01.10.2019 issued by the name of Auction Purchaser.
3.1. Ms. Saikia also submits that the Respondent No. 01, 02 and 03
approached Debts Recovery Tribunal against the e-auction dated
08.08.2019 by filing SA No. 107/2019 with a prayer for setting aside the e-
auction notice and restraining Proforma Defendant No. 4 from taking actual
and khas possession of the schedule premises. Then the petitioner filed an
IA, being No. 724/2024 in SA No. 107/2019 with a prayer for placing on
record a compilation of 20 documents. That out of 20 documents only 8
documents were new and other 12 no’s of documents are already in
records. The documents, which the present petitioner desirous to place
Page No.# 4/11
before the Learned Tribunal below for proper adjudication of the case are
mentioned below:-
(i) Report of Assam survey directing revenue officers to do the
needful as per report. Report of the Assistant Director regarding
non-updation of revenue map and physical presence of land of
Dag no 756 entirely on the north of the National Highway.
(ii) Rule circular 3- regarding map mismatch between jamabandi and
maps, jamabandi (written records prevailand map correction to be
undertaken).
(iii) Copy of circular for attaching and get the trace map prepared upon
sale permission at the time of registration registered.
(iv) RTI of no record available of Sale Deed of 2007 schedule.
(v) Copy of aerial survey conducted via drone showing the land of Dag
No. 756 available entirely on the north of the Highway.
(vi) Copy of boundaries of the property since 2007 google historical
images.
(vii) Letter from gaon panchayat regarding Hiren path land and Table
showing no Land in Jamabandi for accommodating extra 3 kathas
of land.
(viii) Land updation request sent to revenue officer pending since
2020.
3.2. Ms. Saikia also submits that the respondent No. 1 had filed affidavit-
in-opposition by stating that no justification, reasons or explanation has
been provided by the petitioner as to how the said documents being sought
Page No.# 5/11
through the I.A to be introduced are relevant to the issues forming the
subject matter of the S.A. She also submits that these documents were not
in possession of the petitioner and the same was submitted to the Tribunal
well before all the I.A’s pending in S.A no. 107/2019. Further Ms. Saikia
submits that the main S.A 107/2019 is not yet decided and the same is
pending before the Tribunal.
3.3. Ms. Saikia also submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this
Court by filing Civil Revision Petition-20/2025 for a suitable direction to the
Learned Tribunal for allowing to submit the additional documents. However,
on 26/03/2025 the revision petition came up for hearing but due to some
technical mistake the counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the petition
with a liberty to file a fresh petition. Earlier revision petition was filed within
the limitation period and that the present petition also is in limitation period
from 26-03-2025 to filing of this present revision petition.
3.4. Further submission of Ms. Saikia is that the present Civil Revision is
filed by the petitioner under the following grounds:
i) That the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that out
of the compilation of 20 documents filed in I.A
724/2024, 12 documents were already part of the
case record of S.A 107/2019 and additional 8
documents were not available with the Petitioner
before filing of I.A 724/2024.
ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal failed to appreciate that most
of the new documents are very recent document like
the document no. 03 Report of Assistant Director of
Surveys dated 23.08.2024, document no. 13- RTI
dated 29.3.24, The aerial survey and google
historical image document no. 15 and 16 is of June,
Page No.# 6/112024 and the Gaon Panchayat letter dated
04.04.2022. Thus, most of the new documents are of
latest date and were not available in the hands of
petitioner to be produced before the Tribunal.
iii) That the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that
Order 14 Rule 2 at any stage of the proceeding,
allows the Court to permit filing of additional
documents.
iv) That the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that
Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC says that the court may
at any time allow additional documents even after
the written statement has been filed.
v) Section 151 of the CPC gives the court inherent
power to make such orders as may be necessary for
the ends of justice, including allowing the filing
of additional documents.
3.5. In the premises aforesaid Ms. Saikia has contended to allow this Civil
Revision Petition as the production of the documents aforesaid are very
much essential for perusal and better appreciation of the dispute. She has
referred following decisions in support of her submission:-
(i) Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Savitri Devi, reported in
(1999) 7 SCC 348,
(ii) Rameshwar Lal vs. Jagdish Singh, reported in (2005) 12
SCC 266;
(iii) Smt. Sneh Prabha vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in
(2006) 6 SCC 364;
Ltd., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 518,
(v) M/s. ICDS Ltd. vs. M/s. Hyder Consulting (UK)
Ltd., reported in (2013) 13 SCC 131;
Page No.# 7/11
4. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the
said respondents, questioned about the very maintainability of the Civil
Revision Petition for being filed after delay of two months, with mala-fide
intention, without there being any explanation for the delay. Mr. Choudhury
also submits that there is no explanation as to how the additional
documents are crucial to succeed in the plea and that there was lack of due
diligence to procure the document and also there is absence of explanation
regarding the relevancy and also the reason as to why the same could not
be produced at the time of hearing. Under such circumstances, Mr.
Choudhury has contended to dismiss the petition.
5. Per contra, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 &
5, referring to its affidavit-in-opposition, submits that there was alternative
and efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and
instead of availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court after
considerable delay and that it is well settled that when alternative and
effacious remady is available, the petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable. Mr. Dutta also submits that the
petitioner had participated in the proceeding and also submitted written
argument and that admittedly, the petitioner had already placed on record
12 documents and the learned Tribunal has found the same sufficient to
decide the matter, while rejecting remaining 8 documents. It is the further
submission of Mr. Dutta that there has already been delay in disposal of the
matter and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the
petition.
Page No.# 8/11
6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I
have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on
record and also gone through the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 and
also gone through the decisions referred by Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
7. It is not in dispute the proceeding of S.A. No. 107/2019 is at the last
stage and the petitioner herein had already filed its written arguments. It
also appears that main parties in the S.A. No. 107/2019 are M/S
Brahmaputra Technologies and Canara Bank and the petitioner is a third
party auction purchaser and stranger to the mortgage deed.
8. That perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Tribunal
had dismissed the petition (I.A. No. 724/2024) on the ground of absence of
relevancy or connection to the issue forming the subject matter of the said
SA. The operative portion of the order read as under:-
“The petitioner (respondent no 5) is a third party
and the stranger to the mortgage deed, therefore, he
has no locus to challenge the validity of mortgagee
deed. The petitioner is not seeking to assert any
ownership in respect to Dag no 756, so he cannot make
any comment or observation with regard title,
ownership and possession of the SARFAESI Applicant in
respect of Dag no 756, of sale deed no 8834/2007. The
purported documents have not any relevance pouring or
connection to the issue forming the subject matter of
the present SA. Moreover, the petitioner has not
given any particulars as to the date and time, when
such documents came to the knowledge of the
petitioner. No explanation has been provided by the
petitioner as to how the petitioner could not have
Page No.# 9/11obtained copies of the said documents prior in point
of time. The said documents are of matters of public
records and as such there is no reason as to why the
petitioner could not have obtained the access of the
said document prior to the point of time.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in
IA No. 724/2024. Hence IA No. 724/2024 is dismissed
and disposed of.”
9. I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by Ms. Saikia,
learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that in the case of Kalyan
Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the court has the
power to allow the filing of additional documents at any stage of the
proceedings, even after the written statement has been filed. Then in the
case of Rameshwar Lal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
the power to allow the filing of additional documents is discretionary and
should be exercised judiciously. In the case of Smt. Sneh
Prabha(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the court can allow the
filing of additional documents even after the arguments have commenced,
if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. Then in the case of the
Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that the power to allow the filing of additional documents should
be exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice. And in the
case of M/s. ICDS Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
the court has the power to allow the filing of additional documents even in
appeal proceedings.
10. Thus, it is well settled that the power to allow filing of additional
Page No.# 10/11
documents is discretionary and can be allowed at any stage of the
proceeding. In the case in hand, the learned Tribunal has examined the
documents being sought to be produced before it and thereafter, arrived at
a finding that the purported documents does not have any relevance or
connection to the issue, forming the subject matter of the present SA. And
thereafter, applying its discretion it had dismissed the petition. Nothing is
placed on record or being argued to show that the learned Tribunal had
exercised such discretion in a non-judicious manner. Besides, the learned
Tribunal has found that the petitioner has not given any particulars as to
the date and time, when such documents came to the knowledge of the
petitioner and no explanation has been provided by him as to how the
petitioner could not have obtained copies of the said documents prior in
point of time.
10.1. Indisputably, the said documents are of matters of public records
and no reason was shown by the petitioner as to why the petitioner could
not have obtained the access of the said document prior to the point of
time. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party. It is stranger to the
mortgage deed for which he has no locus to challenge the validity of
mortgage deed. Over and above, the petitioner has not been seeking to
assert any ownership in respect to Dag no. 756, so he cannot even raise
any finger in respect of title, ownership and possession of the applicant
under SARFAESI Act, in respect of Dag no 756, of sale deed no. 8834/2007.
In the given factual backdrop, the decisions referred by Ms. Saikia would
not come into her assistance.
10.2. It also appears that efficacious and alternative remedy is available
to the petitioner and instead of availing the same, it has preferred the
Page No.# 11/11
present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well
settled that when efficacious and alternative remedy is available, the
petition under Article 227 is generally not maintainable. This Court is unable
to record concurrence to the submission of Ms. Saikia that only for better
perusal of the Tribunal, addition documents are required to be filed while
relevancy of such documents had already been held to be absent by the
learned Tribunal.
11. Thus, having tested the legality, propriety and correctness of the
impugned order, on the light of the discussion made herein above, this
Court is unable to derive satisfaction that the petitioner has succeeded in
making out a case for interference of this Court, invoking its revisional
jurisdiction.
12. In the result, I find this petition devoid of merit and accordingly the
same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_2]
Source link