Dawa Tamang vs Maita kumar Tamang @ Maitay and Ano.

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK

(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRP No.03 of 2026
Petitioner : Dawa Tamang
versus
Respondents : Maita Kumar Tamang @ Maitay and Another
Application for revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance

Mr. Passang Tshering Bhutia, Advocate with Ms. Pem Lhaki
Tamang, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jorgay Namka, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Ms.
Rinchen Ongmu Bhutia, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the
Respondent No.1.

Mr. Lekden Thondup Basi, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the
Respondent No.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 21-04-2026
Date of pronouncement : 21-04-2026
Order uploaded : 23-04-2026
ORDER (ORAL)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioner herein, (Defendant No.1 before the
Learned Trial Court), impugns the Order of the Court of the
Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pakyong, Sikkim, dated 27-
11-2025, in Title Suit No.09 of 2024 ( Maita Kumar Tamang vs. Dawa
Tamang ), vide which, the Learned Trial Court rejected an
application of the Petitioner filed under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, the “CPC”), seeking to file
additional documents. The Petition was rejected inter alia on the
ground that an erroneous provision of law was invoked by the
Petitioner, as the CPC provided a specific provision for seeking
leave of the Court to fill additional documents, post the filing of the
Written Statement.

CRP No.03 of 2026 2
Dawa Tamang vs. Maita Kumar Tamang @ Maitay and Another



2. The additional documents sought to be filed by the
Petitioners were the electricity bills in the name of the
Petitioner/Defendant from June, 2007 to April, 2024 and the Voter
Identity Cards issued by the Election Commission of India
pertaining to Masini Tamang and Maita Kumar Tamang (the
Respondent No.1 herein), to fortify the Petitioner’s contention of
impersonation by the Respondents.
3. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that, merely because a wrong provision of law was cited,
the prayer of the Petitioner ought not to have been rejected by the
Court since relief could have been granted sans the technicality.
Relying on the decision in Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja (D) by Lrs.
1
vs. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah and Others , it was urged that the
Supreme Court has held therein that, it is well settled that, mere
non-mentioning of a provision is not fatal to the application if the
power to pass such an order is available with the Court.
4. Objecting to the prayers advanced by Learned Counsel
for the Petitioner, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.1
submitted that no averments pertaining to the additional
documents have been made in the Written Statement nor reasons
given for filing of the documents. The source from where the
documents were obtained has also not been revealed, hence there
is no substantial ground for filing the Petition. That, if this Court is
inclined to allow the Petitioner to rectify its Petition under Section
151 of the CPC, the Learned Trial Court ought to be directed to first
consider the reasons for filing of the said documents.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 has no
specific submissions to advance.

1
Civil Appeal No.10521 of 2013 decided on 04-10-2019

CRP No.03 of 2026 3
Dawa Tamang vs. Maita Kumar Tamang @ Maitay and Another



6. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The
impugned Order, dated 27-11-2025, of the Learned Trial Court,
inter alia reads as follows;
“ ………………………………………………
The absence of bona fides, combined with the
availability of proper procedural mechanisms under
the CPC─which the defendant failed to
invoke─precludes the exercise of inherent powers in
his favour. Section 151 cannot be used to circumvent
express provisions of the Code or to assist a party
who has not approached the Court with due diligence.

Also, the defendant's application under Section
151 CPC cannot be sustained as the defendant has
neither disclosed the source nor established
possession of the documents sought to be produced,
nor has any satisfactory explanation for the delay in
filing these documents been offered, thus the
application under Section 151 CPC, 1908 is
accordingly rejected.
……………………………………………… ”

7. To the extent of the observation of the Learned Trial
Court that, the Petitioner ought to have been diligent and invoked
the correct provision of law, this Court is on the same page with
the Learned Court. Nonetheless, the circumstance of having
invoked an incorrect provision by itself ought not to be the reason
to deprive the Petitioner from filing the additional documents to
buttress his case, when in fact the trial is at a nascent stage, as
evident from the records available before this Court.
8. The Petitioner has also, in his application under Section
151 of the CPC as Defendant, before the Learned Trial Court, put
forth the following averments;

CRP No.03 of 2026 4
Dawa Tamang vs. Maita Kumar Tamang @ Maitay and Another

9. In fact, vide the Order of the Learned Trial Court, dated
19-12-2024, an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 30,
Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC, requesting the
Court to issue summons to the Election Department, was allowed.
10. In the interregnum, the documents mentioned ( supra )
appear to have been obtained by the Petitioner. The Petitioner
surely cannot be faulted for making efforts to buttress his defence
before the Learned Trial Court. The argument of Learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 that no averments pertaining to
such documents now sought to be filed as additional documents
was made in the Written Statement, is not tenable for the reason
that, Paragraph 16 of the Written Statement of the Petitioner
makes a reference to the Electoral Identity Cards.
11. The entire exercise of a trial in a Title Suit is to get to
the crux of the matter and to provide even handed justice to the
litigating parties. Justice must be seen to be done and the Court
should not be weighed down by technicalities.
12. On this facet, the Supreme Court in Sugandhi (dead) by
Legal Representatives and Another vs. P. Rajkumar represented by his
2
power agent Imam Oli has categorically propounded that;

2
(2020) 10 SCC 706

CRP No.03 of 2026 5
Dawa Tamang vs. Maita Kumar Tamang @ Maitay and Another

3
Kanchan Devi (Smt) and Others has observed as follows;
“14. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a
servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural
prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a
lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. ”

(ii) In the same spirit, the Supreme Court in M/s Anvita
4
Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Aroush Motors and Another
reiterated that;
“2. The present controversy can be encapsulated in
words of the Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer:

“ Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a
servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It is
the handmaid of justice and not its mistress”


(iii) The gamut of the foregoing decisions of the Supreme
Court is revelatory of the stand that, a litigant should not be denied
substantial justice on grounds of technicalities.
13. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case and
relying on the observations ( supra ) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
although the Petitioner has invoked an incorrect provision of law, in
my considered view, the Petitioner ought to be afforded an
opportunity by the Learned Trial Court to re-file the application,
filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by

3
(2005) 6 SCC 705

4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2181

CRP No.03 of 2026 6
Dawa Tamang vs. Maita Kumar Tamang @ Maitay and Another



incorporating the correct legal provision, for seeking leave of the
Court to file additional documents.
14. The Learned Trial Court shall thereafter consider the
Petition as per law.
15. Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
16. Stay of the proceedings in Title Suit No.09 of 2024,
granted vide Order of this Court, dated 19-02-2026, stands
vacated accordingly.
17. Copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned Trial
Court for information and compliance.


( Meenakshi Madan Rai )

Judge
21-04-2026



Approved for reporting : Yes





ds/sdl