Prahlad Singh and Anr v. Prabhawati Das and 2 Ors

ORDER

13.09.2024 Heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. N.K. Page No.# 3/4 Neog, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶2This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioners, namely, Shri Prahlad Singh and Shri Manish Rai, challenging the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, on the Petition No.4363/2022 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing additional documents.

¶3It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 04.08.2023, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the plaint contains no averment, whatsoever, regarding filing of the income tax return of the plaintiffs for any assessment year and as such, the additional documents sought to be filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs are beyond their pleadings and therefore, rejected the petition.

¶4Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the written statement submitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 reveals that after signing of the agreement of the plaintiffs, as per income tax department notification, the plaintiffs cannot pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and they will make payment by bank transfer within a week. However, the plaintiffs did not make any payment. Since a specific plea is taken in the written statement cum counter claim filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 3, the plaintiffs are required to file the income tax return and that the petitioners have already filed reply to the said counter claim and in view of the averment made by the respondents in the written statement cum counter claim, the petitioners/plaintiffs may be allowed to file the income tax return.

¶5On the other hand, Mr. Neog, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that there is no averment in the plaint regarding filing of any income tax return and as such, the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition.

¶6Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused Page No.# 4/4 the impugned order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, on the Petition No.4363/2022 filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Section 151 of the CPC.

¶7It appears that the learned Trial Court has rejected the petition on the ground that no averment was made in the plaint by the petitioners/plaintiffs regarding filing of income tax return in respect of any assessment year and therefore, rejected the petition. But, it appears from the written statement cum counter claim filed by the respondent/defendant Nos.1 and 3 that a plea has been taken regarding payment of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of execution and the same has been shown in the income tax file of the plaintiffs and in that view of the matter, the reason for dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs by the learned Trial Court, appears to be illegal and arbitrary and as such, the same cannot be allowed to stand.

¶8Accordingly, the order dated 04.08.2023 stands set aside, being arbitrary and illegal. The learned Trial Court is directed to allow the petitioners/plaintiffs to file their income tax return for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

¶9In terms of above, this civil revision petition stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010209982023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP(IO)/304/2023o PRAHLADoSINGHoANDoANRo SONoOFoSRIoMITHERoRAI,o RESIDENToOFoSHANKARNAGAR,oTOKOBARI,o A.T.oROAD,oP.S.-oBHARALUMUKH,o GUWAHATI-o781009,oDISTRICT-oKAMRUP(M),o ASSAM. 2:oMANISHoRAI oSONoOFoSRIoMITHERoRAI o RESIDENToOFoSHANKARNAGAR oTOKOBARI o A.T.oROAD oP.S.-oBHARALUMUKH o GUWAHATI-o781009 oDISTRICT-oKAMRUP(M) o ASSAMo VERSUSo PRABHAWATIoDASoANDo2oORSo WIFEoOFoLATEoRAJENoCHANDRAoDAS,oALIASo(LATEoRAJENoDAS),o RESIDENToOFoTOKOBARI,oA.T.oROAD,oNEARoCHANDoMARKEToBYEoLANE,o BETWEENoCHANDoMARKEToANDoPAWANoAUTOMOBILES,o P.O.oANDoP.S.-oBHARALUKUKH,oDISTRICT-oKAMRUP(M),o GUWAHATI-9. 2:NALINIoBALAoDAS oDAUGHTERoOFoLATEoSARURAMoDAS oALIASoSARURAMoMEDHI o Page No.# 2/4 RESIDENT OF TOKOBARI A.T. ROAD NEAR CHAND MARKET BYE LANE BETWEEN CHAND MARKET AND PAWAN AUTOMOBILES P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUKUKH DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-9. 3:JAYANTA KUMAR PATHAK SON OF LATE SURENDRA KUMAR PATHAK ORIGINALLY RESIDENT OF TOKOBARI A.T. ROAD NEAR CHAND MARKET BYE LANE BETWEEN CHAND MARKET AND PAWAN AUTOMOBILES P.O. AND P.S.- BHARALUKUKH DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI-9. PRESENTLY EMPLOYED IN GUWAHATI CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. CHATRIBARI GUWAHATI-8 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SHARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR S BHARALI (R-1,3), N K NEOG (R-1,3),MR. M DAS (R-1,3) BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN