MUSSTT. SAHEDA BEGUM Vs. GOPAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.C. Sarma learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on call for the respondent although service of notice on the respondent is complete as indicated by order dated 18.09.2015.

(2.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has challenged the order dated 15.03.2013 as well as the order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the learned Court of Munsiff No.2, Kamrup Metropolitan, Guwahati in Title Suit No.146/04. During the pendency of the suit, a settlement operation had taken place and accordingly, Dag Number and Patta Number of the suit land stood altered/changed. An inadvertent mistake crept in the plaint as new Dag and Patta numbers were not mentioned in the amended plaint.

(3.) During the course of cross-examination, the respondent's side had put suggestions to the petitioner with regard to the new Dag and Patta number that it were not in consonance with the land covered by the old Dag and Patta numbers. Therefore, in order to clarify the matter, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 13 Rule 10 CPC read with section 151 CPC to call for a report from the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle to clarify whether the present Patta No.1674 and Dag No.1204 has been abstracted from the Dag No.146 (old) / 914 (new) of K.P. Patta No.111 of village-Satgaon under Mouza-Beltola in the district of Kamrup.