Its Director Youdhitra Bhama And Balwan Bhama, House v. Pritomjit Hazarika

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 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 FANCYBAZAR 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) BEFOREHONOURABLE 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, learnedcounsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counselfor the respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2.In this revision petition, under Section 115 of the Code of CivilProcedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner,namely, M/S Vaishno Devi Traders Private Limited, has challenged the orderdated 08.01.2025, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts RecoveryTribunal, 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 20documents of which 8 documents were new and 12 documents werealready on record, was dismissed. 3.Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioneris the 3rd party auction purchaser of the auction property carried out by theCanara Bank i.e. Proforma Respondent no. 4 herein. She also submits thatthe respondent No. 1 and 2 had defaulted in their loan taken from ProformaRespondent No. 4 and 5. Accordingly, an auction notice was issued byProforma Defendant No. 4, wherein the petitioner took part in the auctionand paid Rs. 6,11,00,000/- to the Proforma Defendant No. 4 against theauction property, and the Proforma Defendant No. 4 confirmed the sale viaSale certificate dated 01.10.2019 issued by the name of Auction Purchaser. 3.Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioneris the 3rd party auction purchaser of the auction property carried out by theCanara Bank i.e. Proforma Respondent no. 4 herein. She also submits thatthe respondent No. 1 and 2 had defaulted in their loan taken from ProformaRespondent No. 4 and 5. Accordingly, an auction notice was issued byProforma Defendant No. 4, wherein the petitioner took part in the auctionand paid Rs. 6,11,00,000/- to the Proforma Defendant No. 4 against theauction property, and the Proforma Defendant No. 4 confirmed the sale viaSale 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 03approached Debts Recovery Tribunal against the e-auction dated08.08.2019 by filing SA No. 107/2019 with a prayer for setting aside the e-auction notice and restraining Proforma Defendant No. 4 from taking actualand khas possession of the schedule premises. Then the petitioner filed anIA, being No. 724/2024 in SA No. 107/2019 with a prayer for placing onrecord a compilation of 20 documents. That out of 20 documents only 8documents were new and other 12 no's of documents are already inrecords. The documents, which the present petitioner desirous to place before the Learned Tribunal below for proper adjudication of the case arementioned below:- (i) Report of Assam survey directing revenue officers to do theneedful as per report. Report of the Assistant Director regardingnon-updation of revenue map and physical presence of land ofDag no 756 entirely on the north of the National Highway.needful as per report. Report of the Assistant Director regardingnon-updation of revenue map and physical presence of land ofDag no 756 entirely on the north of the National Highway. (ii) Rule circular 3- regarding map mismatch between jamabandi andmaps, jamabandi (written records prevailand map correction to beundertaken).maps, jamabandi (written records prevailand map correction to beundertaken). (iii) Copy of circular for attaching and get the trace map prepared uponsale permission at the time of registration registered.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 DagNo. 756 available entirely on the north of the Highway.No. 756 available entirely on the north of the Highway. (vi) Copy of boundaries of the property since 2007 google historicalimages.images. (vii) Letter from gaon panchayat regarding Hiren path land and Tableshowing no Land in Jamabandi for accommodating extra 3 kathasof land.showing no Land in Jamabandi for accommodating extra 3 kathasof land. (viii) Land updation request sent to revenue officer pending since2020.2020. 3.2.Ms. Saikia also submits that the respondent No. 1 had filed affidavit-in-opposition by stating that no justification, reasons or explanation hasbeen provided by the petitioner as to how the said documents being sought through the I.A to be introduced are relevant to the issues forming thesubject matter of the S.A. She also submits that these documents were notin possession of the petitioner and the same was submitted to the Tribunalwell before all the I.A's pending in S.A no. 107/2019. Further Ms. Saikiasubmits that the main S.A 107/2019 is not yet decided and the same ispending before the Tribunal. 3.3.Ms. Saikia also submits that the petitioner had earlier approached thisCourt by filing Civil Revision Petition-20/2025 for a suitable direction to theLearned Tribunal for allowing to submit the additional documents. However,on 26/03/2025 the revision petition came up for hearing but due to sometechnical mistake the counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the petitionwith a liberty to file a fresh petition. Earlier revision petition was filed withinthe limitation period and that the present petition also is in limitation periodfrom 26-03-2025 to filing of this present revision petition. 3.3.Ms. Saikia also submits that the petitioner had earlier approached thisCourt by filing Civil Revision Petition-20/2025 for a suitable direction to theLearned Tribunal for allowing to submit the additional documents. However,on 26/03/2025 the revision petition came up for hearing but due to sometechnical mistake the counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the petitionwith a liberty to file a fresh petition. Earlier revision petition was filed withinthe limitation period and that the present petition also is in limitation periodfrom 26-03-2025 to filing of this present revision petition. 3.4.Further submission of Ms. Saikia is that the present Civil Revision isfiled by the petitioner under the following grounds: i) That the Ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that outof the compilation of 20 documents filed in I.A724/2024, 12 documents were already part of thecase record of S.A 107/2019 and additional 8documents were not available with the Petitionerbefore filing of I.A 724/2024.of the compilation of 20 documents filed in I.A724/2024, 12 documents were already part of thecase record of S.A 107/2019 and additional 8documents were not available with the Petitionerbefore filing of I.A 724/2024. ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal failed to appreciate that mostof the new documents are very recent document likethe document no. 03 Report of Assistant Director ofSurveys dated 23.08.2024, document no. 13- RTIdated 29.3.24, The aerial survey and googlehistorical image document no. 15 and 16 is of June,of the new documents are very recent document likethe document no. 03 Report of Assistant Director ofSurveys dated 23.08.2024, document no. 13- RTIdated 29.3.24, The aerial survey and googlehistorical image document no. 15 and 16 is of June, 2024 and the Gaon Panchayat letter dated04.04.2022. Thus, most of the new documents are oflatest date and were not available in the hands ofpetitioner to be produced before the Tribunal. iii) That the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate thatOrder 14 Rule 2 at any stage of the proceeding,allows the Court to permit filing of additionaldocuments.Order 14 Rule 2 at any stage of the proceeding,allows the Court to permit filing of additionaldocuments. iv) That the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate thatOrder 14 Rule 5 of the CPC says that the court mayat any time allow additional documents even afterthe written statement has been filed.Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC says that the court mayat any time allow additional documents even afterthe written statement has been filed. v) Section 151 of the CPC gives the court inherentpower to make such orders as may be necessary forthe ends of justice, including allowing the filingof additional documents.power to make such orders as may be necessary forthe ends of justice, including allowing the filingof additional documents. 3.5.In the premises aforesaid Ms. Saikia has contended to allow this CivilRevision Petition as the production of the documents aforesaid are verymuch essential for perusal and better appreciation of the dispute. She hasreferred following decisions in support of her submission:- (i) Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Savitri Devi, reported in(1999) 7 SCC 348,(1999) 7 SCC 348, (ii) Rameshwar Lal vs. Jagdish Singh, reported in (2005) 12SCC 266;SCC 266; (iii) Smt. Sneh Prabha vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 364;(2006) 6 SCC 364; (iv) State of Maharashtra vs. Hindustan Construction Co.Ltd., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 518,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; 4.Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the (i) Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Savitri Devi, reported in(1999) 7 SCC 348,(1999) 7 SCC 348, (ii) Rameshwar Lal vs. Jagdish Singh, reported in (2005) 12SCC 266;SCC 266; (iii) Smt. Sneh Prabha vs. Jagdish Chand, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 364;(2006) 6 SCC 364; (iv) State of Maharashtra vs. Hindustan Construction Co.Ltd., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 518,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; 4.Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by thesaid 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 duediligence 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 alternativeand efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, andinstead of availing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court afterconsiderable delay and that it is well settled that when alternative andeffacious remady is available, the petition under Article 226/227 of theConstitution of India is not maintainable. Mr. Dutta also submits that thepetitioner had participated in the proceeding and also submitted writtenargument and that admittedly, the petitioner had already placed on record12 documents and the learned Tribunal has found the same sufficient todecide the matter, while rejecting remaining 8 documents. It is the furthersubmission of Mr. Dutta that there has already been delay in disposal of thematter and under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss thepetition. 6.Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, Ihave carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed onrecord and also gone through the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 andalso gone through the decisions referred by Ms. Saikia, learned counsel forthe petitioner. 7.It is not in dispute the proceeding of S.A. No. 107/2019 is at the laststage and the petitioner herein had already filed its written arguments. Italso appears that main parties in the S.A. No. 107/2019 are M/SBrahmaputra Technologies and Canara Bank and the petitioner is a thirdparty auction purchaser and stranger to the mortgage deed. 8.That perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Tribunalhad dismissed the petition (I.A. No. 724/2024) on the ground of absence ofrelevancy or connection to the issue forming the subject matter of the saidSA. The operative portion of the order read as under:- “The petitioner (respondent no 5) is a third partyand the stranger to the mortgage deed, therefore, hehas no locus to challenge the validity of mortgageedeed. The petitioner is not seeking to assert anyownership in respect to Dag no 756, so he cannot makeany comment or observation with regard title,ownership and possession of the SARFAESI Applicant inrespect of Dag no 756, of sale deed no 8834/2007. Thepurported documents have not any relevance pouring orconnection to the issue forming the subject matter ofthe present SA. Moreover, the petitioner has notgiven any particulars as to the date and time, whensuch documents came to the knowledge of thepetitioner. No explanation has been provided by thepetitioner as to how the petitioner could not have “The petitioner (respondent no 5) is a third partyand the stranger to the mortgage deed, therefore, hehas no locus to challenge the validity of mortgageedeed. The petitioner is not seeking to assert anyownership in respect to Dag no 756, so he cannot makeany comment or observation with regard title,ownership and possession of the SARFAESI Applicant inrespect of Dag no 756, of sale deed no 8834/2007. Thepurported documents have not any relevance pouring orconnection to the issue forming the subject matter ofthe present SA. Moreover, the petitioner has notgiven any particulars as to the date and time, whensuch documents came to the knowledge of thepetitioner. No explanation has been provided by thepetitioner as to how the petitioner could not have obtained copies of the said documents prior in pointof time. The said documents are of matters of publicrecords and as such there is no reason as to why thepetitioner could not have obtained the access of thesaid 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 dismissedand 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 KalyanSingh (supra), Hon’bleSupreme Court has held that the court has thepower to allow the filing of additional documents at any stage of theproceedings, even after the written statement has been filed. Then in thecase of Rameshwar Lal (supra),Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thatthe power to allow the filing of additional documents is discretionary andshould be exercised judiciously. In the case ofSmt. SnehPrabha(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the court can allow thefiling 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 theHindustan Construction Co. Ltd.(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Courtobserved that the power to allow the filing of additional documents shouldbe exercised in accordance with the principles of natural justice. And in thecase of M/s. ICDS Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thatthe court has the power to allow the filing of additional documents even inappeal proceedings. 10.Thus, it is well settled that the power to allow filing of additional documents is discretionary and can be allowed at any stage of theproceeding. In the case in hand, the learned Tribunal has examined thedocuments being sought to be produced before it and thereafter, arrived ata finding that the purported documents does not have any relevance orconnection to the issue, forming the subject matter of the present SA. Andthereafter, applying its discretion it had dismissed the petition. Nothing isplaced on record or being argued to show that the learned Tribunal hadexercised such discretion in a non-judicious manner. Besides, the learnedTribunal has found that the petitioner has not given any particulars as tothe date and time, when such documents came to the knowledge of thepetitioner and no explanation has been provided by him as to how thepetitioner could not have obtained copies of the said documents prior inpoint of time. 10.1.Indisputably, the said documents are of matters of public recordsand no reason was shown by the petitioner as to why the petitioner couldnot have obtained the access of the said document prior to the point oftime. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party. It is stranger to themortgage deed for which he has no locus to challenge the validity ofmortgage deed. Over and above, the petitioner has not been seeking toassert any ownership in respect to Dag no. 756, so he cannot even raiseany finger in respect of title, ownership and possession of the applicantunder 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 wouldnot come into her assistance. 10.1.Indisputably, the said documents are of matters of public recordsand no reason was shown by the petitioner as to why the petitioner couldnot have obtained the access of the said document prior to the point oftime. Admittedly, the petitioner is a third party. It is stranger to themortgage deed for which he has no locus to challenge the validity ofmortgage deed. Over and above, the petitioner has not been seeking toassert any ownership in respect to Dag no. 756, so he cannot even raiseany finger in respect of title, ownership and possession of the applicantunder 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 wouldnot come into her assistance. 10.2. It also appears that efficacious and alternative remedy is availableto the petitioner and instead of availing the same, it has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is wellsettled that when efficacious and alternative remedy is available, thepetition under Article 227 is generally not maintainable. This Court is unableto record concurrence to the submission of Ms. Saikia that only for betterperusal of the Tribunal, addition documents are required to be filed whilerelevancy of such documents had already been held to be absent by thelearned Tribunal. 11.Thus, having tested the legality, propriety and correctness of theimpugned order, on the light of the discussion made herein above, thisCourt is unable to derive satisfaction that the petitioner has succeeded inmaking out a case for interference of this Court, invoking its revisionaljurisdiction. 12.In the result, I find this petition devoid of merit and accordingly thesame stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. J U D G E Comparing Assistant