AGARTALA, India, March 23 -- Tripura High Court issued the following order/judgement on Feb. 20:

1. All respondents except respondent No.7 are served, but they have not engaged any counsel to defend themselves in these CRPs. So they are set ex parte.

2. Counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press these Revisions as against the respondent No.7 on the ground that she is residing in Bangladesh and the address of the said respondent is not known to the petitioner or her counsel.

3. Therefore, these Revisions are dismissed as against the respondent No.7 and would survive against the other respondents.

4. Heard counsel for petitioner/plaintiff.

5. These two Revisions are preferred against the common order dt.22.07.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura in Title Suit No.88 of 2019 rejecting applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

6. The petitioner/plaintiff had filed the said suit against the respondents for a declaration that she is the legitimate daughter of Late Santosh Kumar Saha through his second wife Smti. Gita Chakraborty (Saha), and seeking a share in the arrears of family pension and other benefits payable on account of the death of her alleged father, which are currently being paid to the defendant No.4, who is the first wife of the deceased Santosh Kumar Saha, and for other reliefs.

7. One of the applications moved by the petitioner was an application under Order XVI Rule 6 and 7 of the CPC for issuing summons to defendants No.1 to 3 for producing certain documents referred to in the said application and giving the evidence or to produce the same before the Court through any authorized person who would be able to give evidence to that effect.

8. Another application was also filed for a similar relief seeking certified copies of the documents mentioned therein from the respondents No.1 to 3 and for giving evidence on the ground that the documents which had been furnished by the defendants No.1 to 3 were not certified copies but were only photocopies.

9. These two applications are treated by the Court below to be as the second application and third application filed by the petitioner.

10. The Court below rejected both these applications by the said common order passed by it.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x1qlCHF%2B%2FPkn3yY9snsxr%2BjRhHtn4OcivoquO0jPTJRF&caseno=CRP/80/2025&cCode=1&cino=TRHC010019282025&state_code=20&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.