1
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DIV), KAMRUP, AT
AMINGAON
TITLE SUIT NO.171/2014
Sri Dasarath Deka
…Plaintiff
-Versus-
Madhuri Devi and Ors
…
Defendants
Objection of the Plaintiff to the
application bearing No.639 dated
06/03/2025 filed by the Defendant
No.3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure .
The Plaintiff begs to state as follows:
1. That the application filed by the Defendant No. 3(1), 3(2)
and 3(3) under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for
is not maintainable in law and on facts.
2. That after completion of the argument the present title
suit was fixed for judgment on 06/03/2025 but the
2
judgment has not been delivered yet. The present suit is
at fag end of trail and it cannot be kept pending till
disposal of other suit filed by the Defendant No. 3(1),
3(2) and 3(3) and as such there is no reason to tag the
present suit with the Title suit No.35/2022 filed by the
Defendant No. 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) and to keep the suit in
abeyance.
3. That save and except the statements which are
specifically admitted by the Plaintiff all other statements
made in the application may be treated as denied and
disputed.
4. That the statement made in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 of the
application are the matter of record and the Plaintiff has
got no comment.
5. That the statements made in paragraph 4 of the
application are not true and correct and the same are
not admitted by the Plaintiff except the institution of the
fresh suit. In this regard it is stated that the power of
attorney and the sale deed are genuine.
6. That the statements made in paragraph 5 of the
application to the effect that the Plaintiff as
defendant/petitioner has filed an application being
petition No.362/23 dated 08/02/23 under Section 10 of
the CPC for stay of the Title Suit No.35/2022 are
3
admitted and rest statements made in the same
paragraph are denied. There is no provision to keep the
earlier suit pending till disposal of the subsequent suit.
Rather, under Section 10 of the CPC the subsequent suit
can be stayed if the matter in issue involved in both the
suits is directly and substantially same in between the
same parties. It is the Plaintiff who shall suffer injustice if
his suit is tagged with the subsequent Title suit
No.35/2022 and is kept in abeyance. It is pertinent to
mention here that the subsequent suit filed by the
Defendant No.3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) is in fact not
maintainable as the subject matter in the subsequent
suit is the same directly and substantially and the
subsequent Title Suit No.35/22 is liable to be stayed
under Section 10 of the CPC.
7. That the statements made in paragraph 6 of the
application to the effect that the deceased father of the
above-named Defendants namely Kanak Lahkar was the
absolute owner and possessor of land measuring 4
Katha 7 Lessa covered by Dag No.488 of Patta No.194
situated at village-Dhopatari, Mouza-Silasendurighopa in
the district of Kamrup, Assam are admitted and the said
land was purchased by the Plaintiff by way of registered
sale deed bearing No.1847/07 dated 14/02/2007. The
sale deed was duly executed by the Proforma Defendant
No.4 and 5 who are the attorney of the original
4
Defendant No.3 Kanak Lahkar. The Power of Attorney
and sale deed are genuine. However, the validity of the
Power of Attorney and sale deed are the subject matter
of the present suit and the Defendant No. 3(1), 3(2) and
3(3) have got no right to raise the same subject matter
in the subsequent suit and the subsequent suit is not
maintainable in law and on facts. The application filed by
the Defendant No. 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) is devoid of merit
and the same liable to be rejected with cost.
8. That the statements made in paragraph 7 of the
application are not admitted the Plaintiff. The present
application is filed with a malafide intention just to
harass the Plaintiff.
9. That in any view of the matter the application is liable to
be dismissed with cost.
It is, therefore, prayed that your
honour would be pleased to
dismiss the application of the
Defendant No. 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3)
with cost.
And for this act of kindness, the Plaintiff as in duty bound
shall ever pray.
5
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sri Dasarath Deka, S/o- Late Monmil Deka, aged about
62 years, by religion-Hindu, resident of Village-Dhopatari, P.O
and P.S- Changsari, District-Kamrup, Assam do hereby
solemnly and declare as follows :-
1. That I am the Plaintiff in the instant suit and as such fully
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
As such I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the statement made in this affidavit as well as the
statement made in the accompanying objection from
paragraphs 1 to 9 are true to my knowledge and belief
and rest are my humble submission before this Hon’ble
Court.
“OATH”
“I swear that this declaration is true, that it conceals nothing
and that no part of it is false, so help me God”.
And I sign this affidavit on this the ……. day of July, 2025 at
Amingoan.
6
Identified by
DEPONENT
Advocate