1

Form No. (J) 2

HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT

District: Golaghat

IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF NO. 1, AT GOLAGHAT

Present: Sri Nirmal Kr. Laskar, AJS

Thursday, the 16th day of June, 2016

Title Suit No. 2 of 2010

Md. Safiuddin Ahmed

Son of Sh. Azruddin Ahmed

Resident of Beda Jiya Gaon

P.O.- Titabor, District – Jorhat, Assam

..........................Plaintiff

-Versus-

Mrs. Munnu Begum

D/O Late Sh. Azizur Rehman,

C/O. Sh. Akram Bora,

Resident of Betioni Gaon, Bagan Chariali,

Mouza: Dhekial, District – Golaghat, Assam.

..........................Defendant

This suit coming on for final hearing on 27.05.2016 in the presence of

Mr. D. Boordoloi ................Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff

Mr. D. P. Jaiswal ............Learned Advocate for the Defendant

Contd.

2

And having stood for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following

judgment:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for declaration, permanent and Mandatory injunction.

2. The brief fact of the plaintiff’s case is that the defendant proclaimed that

she was married to the plaintiff in terms of a Kabin Nama and she

enjoyed married life with the plaintiff in her village Betiani and the

plaintiff was reluctant to take her to his original house because of his wife

Smti. Rusna Begum who was residing there and so the plaintiff used to

visit the defendant in her house and enjoyed marital relations with her for

about six months, but thereafter the plaintiff stopped visiting her and also

failed to maintain and support her and ultimately deserted her. The

plaintiff averred that no marriage between him and the defendant took

place and he never lived/cohabitate with the defendant as husband and

wife. That on 20.02.2004 i.e., on the date when the Kabin Nama was

alleged to be executed the defendant was already married to one

Jamaluddin Ahmed other than the plaintiff and as such her first marriage

with the said person was subsisting on 29.02.2004 and as such the

defendant was not competent to marry the plaintiff on 29.02.2004. The

plaintiff averred that under the circumstances the alleged Kabin Nama is

not a legally valid document and on the basis of the same the defendant

is not competent to claim any personal right as wife of the plaintiff. It is

also averred in the plaint that there is no evidence to substantiate the

allegations that the plaintiff and defendant ever lived and cohabitated

together as husband and wife. It is further averred that with a view to

blackmail and extort money from the plaintiff, the defendant by claiming

herself to be the wife of the plaintiff filed a petition under section 125 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, for her maintenance which was registered

as Misc. Case no. 8/2005 wherein vide order dated 23.08.2006 she was

allowed monthly maintenance allowance by considering her to be the wife

Contd.

3

of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff preferred a Revision before

the Hon’ble Court of Sessions Judge at Golaghat vide Crl. Rev. No.

11/2006 against that order which was dismissed vide judgment dated

14.07.2008. Again feeling aggrieved the plaintiff filed a petition under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon’ble Gauhati

High Court against that order of the Hon’ble Court of Sessions Judge vide

Crl Rev. Petition no. 340/2008 which was also dismissed by the Hon’ble

High Court vide order dated 04.06.2009 upholding the above referred

orders passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Golaghat and Additional Chief

Judicial Magiatrate, Golaghat. The plaintiff further averred that the said

Kabin Nama is not valid and legal and the same was exhibited by

misrepresentation of facts about the marital status of the defendant as on

29.04.2004 because on that day the plaintiff was already married to

another person. The plaintiff also averred that after the aforesaid order

dated 04.06.2009 the plaintiff used to visit the defendant and persuaded

and requested her to join him in her matrimonial home, but the

defendant refused to accompany the plaintiff to her matrimonial home. It

is also averred that the plaintiff insisted her to accompany him in her

matrimonial home and to lead a married life with him. The plaintiff further

stated in his plaint that he never signed the said Kabin Nama dated

29.02.2004 and the same is forged and fabricated one and he never

executed the same. He also averred that the defendant had withdrawn

herself from company of the plaintiff ever since October, 2004 and never

cohabitated/lived together with the plaintiff as his alleged wife, and she is

legally bound to join the plaintiff and to live with him and enjoy married

life with the plaintiff, but she refused to join him. Hence, the plaintiff has

prayed for declaration that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant

on the basis of the so-called Kabin Nama dated 29.02.2004 as null and

void ab-initio, nullity, non-est, without substance, without an illegal

credence or consequence; and for restraining the defendant from

claiming herself as legally married wife of the plaintiff on the basis of the

said Kabin Nama; and for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff,

and against the defendant. The plaintiff has also prayed for mandatory

Contd.

4

injunction directing the defendant to join him in her matrimonial home

and lead a married life with him in case the defendant is considered to be

the wife of the plaintiff on the basis of the said Kabin Nama dated

29.02.2004; and for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

3. The defendant appeared before the Court in response to the process of

the Court issued to her and contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing her

written statement wherein she stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not

maintainable in law as well as in facts; that the plaintiff failed to value the

suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and also for the purpose of payment of

Court fee; that the plaintiff is taking contradictory plea i.e., vide prayer

No. 1. the plaintiff claimed that the Kabin Nama exhibited between the

plaintiff and the defendant is null and void ab-initio and vide prayer no. 3

the plaintiff prayed for a direction directing the defendant to join the

plaintiff in her matrimonial home, and due to these contradictory prayer

the suit is not maintainable in the eye of law; that there is no cause of

action for the suit; that the suit is barred by waiver, estoppel and

acquiescence; that the suit is not maintainable in the present form or any

other form. The defendant in her written statement while denying the

averments of the plaintiff against her stated that the averments made in

paragraph No. 2 of the plaint is not an allegation or proclamation made

by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. She stated that the plaintiff

married her by executing a Kabin Nama before the Kazi of Dhansiri Sub-

Division by performing all the legal and regional formalities as per Muslim

law and thereafter they enjoyed their marital life in the paternal house of

the defendant as requested by the plaintiff and they enjoyed their marital

relationship for more or less than six months and thereafter the plaintiff

deserted the defendant without reasonable cause. She denied the

contention of the plaintiff that no marriage between her and the plaintiff

ever took place and he never cohabitated with her as her husband. It is

also denied by the defendant that on 29.2.04 the defendant was already

married to a person named Jamaluddin Ahmed and her marriage with

that person was subsisting on that day and that she was not competent

Contd.

5

to marry the plaintiff on that particular day. She further denied that the

Kabin Nama is not a valid and legal document and the same was

executed by misrepresentation of the fact about the marital status of the

defendant. The defendant admitted that she was married to one

Jamaluddin Ahmed and later on Jamaluddin Ahmed had divorced her long

before the marriage between her and the plaintiff. She also admitted that

she initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure being Misc. Case no. 8/20 05 claiming maintenance from the

plaintiff before the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate at

Golaghat, but has denied the allegation made in paragraph 7 of the plaint

that she with a view to blackmail and extort money from the plaintiff

claimed herself to be wife of the plaintiff. She further denied that after

the dismissal of the revision petition preferred by the plaintiff in the

Gauhati High Court the plaintiff used to visit and pursued and requested

the defendant to join him in her matrimonial home and she refused to

accompany him in her matrimonial home. She also denied that the the

plaintiff had visited her at her residence on 20/08/09 and on 30/08/09

with some of his friends and relatives and requested her to accompany

the plaintiff to her matrimonial home but she refused to accompany him

and even refused to recognise herself as his wife. She also denied that

the defendant initiated legal proceeding against the plaintiff at the

instance of one Mr. Siddiq Rahman who had inimical relationship with the

wife of the plaintiff Smt. Rusna Begum as alleged by the plaintiff. She

further stated that the plaintiff neither ever approached her to join him in

her matrimonial home at any point of time nor any legal proceeding for

restitution of conjugal rights was initiated by him. She averred that the

plaintiff has filed this false and frivolous suit without any

reasonable/probable ground, and hence she has prayed for dismissal of

the suit with cost.

4. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties my Learned predecessor

has framed the following issues:-

i. Whether there is any cause of action for this suit?

Contd.

6

ii. Whether the suit is maintainable in law?

iii. Whether the plaintiff got married to the defendant by executing Kabin-

Nama dated 29/2/2004?

iv. Whether the plaintiff and the defendant lived/cohabitated as husband

and wife for more or less six months after they got married on

29/2/2004?

v. Whether the defendant was already married to one Jamaluddin Ahmed

on 29/02/2004 and the said marriage of the defendant with the

Jamaluddin Ahmed was subsisting on 29/2/2004?

vi. Whether the said Kabin Nama dated 29/2/2004 is legal and valid

document?

vii. What relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled to?

Additional Issue:-

viii. Whether the Kabin Nama dated 29/02/2004 is forged document?

Vide the order dated 02.08.2012 passed in CRP 384 of 2011 the

Hon’ble Gauhati High Court directed to delete the issue no. (vi) and to

substitute the issue no. (viii) in place of issue no. (vi). As per that order

issue no. (viii) is now issue no. (vi).

5. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim, adduced oral evidence of

five (5) witnesses and a few documentary evidence. The defendant

adduced the oral evidence of herself and some documentary evidence in

her defence.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the

sides. I have also perused the materials available on the record.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

7. Issue no. (iii) and (vi) (as substituted vide order dated

02.08.2012 passed in CRP 384 of 2011 by the Hon’ble Gauhati

High Court.):- As the issue no. (iii) and (vi) are interrelated they

are taken together for discussion and decision on them.

7

a. The plaintiff averred in his plaint in the paragraph no. 3 that no marriage

between him and the defendant ever took place and he never

lived/cohabitated with the defendant as husband and wife. In the

paragraph no. 2 of the plaint the plaintiff averred that the defendant

alleged and proclaimed that she was married to the plaintiff by executing

a Kabin Nama and from the paragraph no. 4 it appears that the Kabin

Nama was executed on 29/02/2004. While the plaintiff denied that he

executed the Kabin Nama dated 29/02/2004, in the paragraph no. 11 of

the plaint the plaintiff averred that the defendant got the said Kabin

Nama executed by misrepresentation of facts about the marital status of

the defendant as on 29/04/2004. In the paragraph no. 4 of the plaint it is

also averred by the plaintiff that on 29/02/2004 the defendant was

already married with one Jamaluddin Ahmed other than the plaintiff and

her marriage with that person was subsisting on that day and as such the

defendant was not competent to marry the plaintiff on 29/02/2004. Thus,

where at one place of the plaint the plaintiff averred that he did not

execute any Kabin Nama dated 29/02/2004, contradictorily at the

paragraph no. 11 he averred that the Kabin Nama was executed by

misrepresentation of facts about the marital status of the defendant as on

29/04/2004. The use of the word ‘misrepresentation’ gives the

understanding to anyone that the plaintiff executed the Kabin Nama but

he did that under the misrepresentation of the fact of subsistence of the

marriage of the defendant with her first husband on 29/04/2004. The

plaintiff has exhibited the photo copy of the Kabin Nama dated

29.04.2004 (proved in original) as Exhibit- 1.

b. In his cross-examination at page no. 6 the plaintiff admitted that Exhibits

A (1), Exhibit B(1), Exhibit C(1) are the signatures put by him in his

attendance sheets and Exhibit D (1), D(2) and D(3) are his signatures on

his petition dated 15.07.2012. He also admitted that these signatures are

similar to the signature which is shown to be his signature in Exhibit 1

which is exhibited as Exhibit 1(1). The plaintiff in his plaint has averred

that the signature shown to be his signature in the Exhibit 1 is not proved

Contd.

8

either by scientific examination or through handwriting expert by

comparing the same with actual signatures of the plaintiff. However,

when the Exhibit 1(1) was compared with the Exhibits A (1) to Exhibit D

(3) it has been found that they fully tallied with each other.

c. To ascertain on whom the burden lies to prove that the Exhibit 1 is a

forged document, let us see what the relevant provisions of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, says in this regard.

“Section 101. Burden of proof.- Whoever desires any Court to give

judgement as to any legal right or liability dependant on the existence of

facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.

When a person is bound to prove the existence of the fact, it is

said that the burden of proof lies on that person.”

“Section 102. On whom burden of proof lies.- The burden of

proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no

evidence at all were given on either side”.

The principle of section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act is that a

party who wishes the Court to believe in the existence of fact and to pass

a judgement on the basis of it should have to prove that fact.

Section 102 of the Indian evidence act tries to locate the party on

whom the burden of proof lies. According to the principle of this Section

the burden of proof lies upon the party whose case would fail if no

evidence were given on either side.

d. In the instant suit it is the plaintiff who has questioned the validity of the

Kabin Nama on the ground of forgery and so he has to prove that the

said document is a forged one. It is the plaintiff who has disputed the

signature in the Kabin Nama. Hence, the burden lies on the plaintiff to

prove that the said document is a forged one and the signature on that

document is not his signature. This burden must be strictly discharged by

the plaintiff. The plaintiff must adduce satisfactory evidence to discharge

Contd.

9

that burden and it will not suffice to point to matters of suspicion or even

to plausible conjecture.

e. The plaintiff has to adduce sufficient evidence to raise a presumption in

his favour. Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that the

initial onus is on the plaintiff. If he discharges that onus and makes out a

case which entitles him to relief, the onus shifts on to the defendant to

prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to

the same.

f. Now, let us see whether the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden to

prove that the Kabin Nama in question is a forged one. In his cross

examination the plaintiff deposed that he did not take steps for scientific

examination in respect of the genuineness of the said Kabin Nama.

g. To prove that the Exhibit 1 is forged one, the plaintiff adduced the

evidence of Md. Nur Mahammad and Md. Maharuddin Ali who are

examined as P.W. 4 and P. W. 5. In his examination-in-chief the P. W. 4

deposed that he did not put his signature in the Exhibit 1. In his

examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination the P. W. 4

deposed that he only can put his signature in Assamese language. In his

cross-examination P. W. 4 deposed that Exhibit 1 is a Kabin Nama but he

does not know between whom that Kabin Nama was executed. He further

deposed that contents in the Exhibit 1 are in English and Assamese script.

He also deposed that he does not know how to read and write. He further

deposed that even after going through the Exhibit 1 he cannot say who

are the parties to that Kabin Nama. Surprisingly, this P. W. 4 during his

cross-examination deposed that he came to know that the Exhibit 1 is a

Kabin Nama from words “Kabin Nama” which are written thereon. That

means he was able to read the words ‘Kabin Nama’ which are printed

thereon the Exhibit 1 in the Assamese script. If he was able to read those

two words it means that he can read and he lied to the Court that he

cannot read and write. This has casted a doubt on the credibility of the

testimony of this witness.

Contd.

10

h. The P. W. 5 Md. Mahuruddin Ali in his examination-in-chief deposed that

he did not put his signature in the Kabin Nama between the plaintiff and

the defendant. He also deposed that he does not know where the said

Kabin Nama was executed. He also deposed that he does not know Munu

Begum, the defendant. But, in his cross-examination P. W. 5 clearly

deposed that the said Kabin Nama was executed in the year 2004 and

since then he knows Munu Begum and since then he heard the name of

the plaintiff. From the cross-examination of P. W. 5 it appears that he

was aware of the said Kabin Nama since 2004, that means since the time

of the execution of the said Kabin Nama. While in his examination-in-

chief which was submitted in this suit on 15/07/2011 the P. W. 5 deposed

that he does not know Munu Begam, on the contrary in his cross-

examination he deposed that since 2004 he knows Munu Begam. Thus,

the evidence of the P. W. 5 is self contradictory. This contrary statement

of the P. W. 5 has casted doubt on the credibility of his testimony.

i. In his examination-in-chief the P. W. 4 deposed that about one and a half

year back the plaintiff instituted a criminal case against him and the P. W.

5 bringing allegation against them that they signed a forged Kabin Nama.

He further deposed that he and the P. W. 5 filed a petition before the

Hon’ble Gauhati High Court to discharge them in that case. In his cross-

examination P. W. 4 deposed that when he went to Gauhati High Court

seeking bail in connection with that criminal case, he was accompanied by

the plaintiff. P. W. 5 in his cross-examination also deposed that the

plaintiff instituted a criminal case against him and the P. W. 4 and in

connection with that case they went to the Gauhati High Court seeking

anticipatory bail. He further deposed that the plaintiff himself took them

to the Gauhati High Court for the purpose of bail and it was the plaintiff

who arranged an advocate for them, but bail was not granted to them by

the High Court. P. W. 5 further deposed that when their bail prayer was

rejected at the Gauhati High Court the plaintiff persuaded them to file a

petition before the Gauhati High Court to relieve them from the liability in

the criminal case that was instituted against them by the plaintiff himself.

Contd.

11

He also deposed that for that purpose also the plaintiff arranged lawyer

for them. However, as deposed by the P. W. 5, that petition was also

rejected by the Gauhati High Court. He further deposed that thereafter

somehow the plaintiff himself arranged for their bail from the police

station. These facts as revealed in the cross-examination of P. W. 4 and

P. W. 5 shows that the plaintiff who instituted a criminal case against the

accused persons bringing allegation of forgery in respect of the Exhibit 1

himself tried by all possible means to get these two witnesses absolved

from their liabilities in that criminal case. The motive behind this act of

the plaintiff is clearly intelligible. The interest shown by the plaintiff in

getting P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 relieved from their liabilities does not appear

to be bona fide one. Thus, it became obvious, as the learned Counsel for

the defendant submitted during the argument, that these two witnesses

of the plaintiff are highly influenced by the plaintiff and for the help

extended by the plaintiff to these two witnesses they are now giving

evidence in favour of the plaintiff.

Under this factual background as revealed from the evidence of

the P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 I am of the considered opinion that these two

witnesses have completely lost their credibility.

The evidence of the rest of the witnesses of the plaintiff are found

immaterial to decide the issues nos. (iii) and (vi).

J. In view of the above discussion of facts and appreciation of evidence, it is

held that the plaintiff has not been able to discharge his initial burden to

prove that the Exhibit 1 i.e., the ‘Kabin Nama’ is a forged document.

Without discharging his initial burden to establish his case the plaintiff

cannot not succeed on mere failure of the defendant to establish her

case. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and he cannot take the

advantage of weakness in the defendant’s case. Accordingly, the issues

no. (iii) is decided in the affirmative and against the plaintiff and the issue

no. (vi) is also decided in the negative and against the plaintiff.

8. Issue No. (iv):- At one place in the plaint the plaintiff averred that

Contd.

12

he never lived/cohabited with the defendant as her husband. But in the

paragraph no. 20 of the plaint it is averred by the plaintiff that the

defendant had withdrawn herself from company of the plaintiff ever since

October, 2004 and never cohabited / lived together with the plaintiff as

his alleged wife ever since October 2004. If the defendant had withdrawn

herself from the company of the plaintiff since October 2004, then where

was she prior to October 2004 since the day of the execution of the Kabin

Nama in question on 29/02/2004 (?). From the averments of the plaintiff

itself it is revealed that the defendant was with the plaintiff prior to

October, 2004. Further, I am of the considered opinion that for deciding

the validity of the Kabin Nama in question a decision on the issue no. (iv)

is not at all required. The fact whether the plaintiff and the defendant

cohabited together as husband and wife has no bearing to decide the

validity of the Kabin Nama in question. Furthermore, the marriage

between the plaintiff and the defendant is proved, from the evidence of

the plaintiff himself. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff deposed that

through his lawyer he sent a notice to the defendant asking her to live

with him as his wife. From the evidence of the plaintiff it also appears

that the plaintiff is in a very confusing state of mind regarding his

relationship with the defendant. At one point of time during his cross-

examination he stated that he gave notice to the defendant asking her to

live with him as he is wife, but at another point of time during his cross-

examination he stated that the defendant is not his legally married wife.

Furthermore, the prayer portion of the plaint also shows the confusing

state of mind of the plaintiff. Where one of the prayer as made in the

plaint is for declaration of the marriage between the plaintiff and the

defendant on the basis of the Kabin Nama in question null and void, the

other prayer is that if the Court considers the defendant to be the wife of

the plaintiff on the basis of the said Kabin Nama dated 29/02/2004 the

defendant may be directed to join the plaintiff in her matrimonial home

and to lead a legally married life with the plaintiff as his legally wedded

wife. From all these it is transparent that the plaintiff has not denied that

the defendant is his wife. Accordingly, the issue no. (iv) is found not

Contd.

13

essential to be decided. Hence, this issue is neither decided in the

affirmative nor in the negative.

9. Issue no. (v):- The plaintiff averred that on 29.02.2004 i.e., the

date on which the Kabin Nama in question was alleged to be executed,

the defendant was already married to a person namely Jamaluddin

Ahmed other than the plaintiff and as such her first marriage was

subsisting on that day and hence the defendant was not competent to

marry the plaintiff on that day. The defendant has denied this contention

of the plaintiff. In his cross examination the plaintiff admitted that the

defendant instituted a criminal case against him and admitted that

Exhibit-E is the complaint lodged by the defendant in that criminal case.

He also deposed that during the trial in that case the defendant produced

a certificate regarding her Talaq with her former husband but the said

certificate was a forged one. However, the plaintiff has not adduced any

evidence to prove that the said document certifying talaq between the

defendant and her former husband was a forged one. The evidence

available on record is found insufficient to prove that there was no talaq

between the defendant and her former husband prior to the execution of

the Kabin Nama in question.

In view of the above discussion of fact and appreciation of

evidence it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant

was already married to one Jamaluddin Ahmed on 29/02/2004 and the

said marriage of the defendant with the Jamaluddin Ahmed was

subsisting on 29/2/2004. As such the issue no. (v) is decided in the

negative and against the plaintiff.

10. Issue no. (ii):- The defendant stated in her written statement that

the suit is not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff has taken

contradictory plea i.e., vide prayer No. 1. the plaintiff claimed that the

Kabin Nama exhibited between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and

void ab-initio and vide prayer no. 3 the plaintiff prayed for a direction to

the defendant to join the plaintiff in her matrimonial home, and due to

Contd.

14

these contradictory prayer the suit is not maintainable in the eye of law.

In my considered opinion that cannot be a ground of non-maintainability

of this suit. Accordingly, this issue no. (ii) is decided in the affirmative and

in favour of the plaintiff.

11. Issue no. (i):- In view of the pleadings of both the parties and

from the discussions made in deciding the issue nos. (iii) to (vi), it is held

that there is cause of action for the suit. Accordingly, the issue no. (i) is

decided in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff.

12. Issue no. (vii):- In view of the above discussions facts and appreciation

of evidence and the decisions arrived at the plaintiff is found not to be

entitled to any relief under the present circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the issue no. (vii) is decided in the negative.

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on contest with cost.

Prepare the decree accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 16th day of

June, 2016.

Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat

15

A P P E N D I X

A) Plaintiff’s Witnesses:

PW 1:- Md. Safiuddin Ahmed

PW 2:- Musstt. Rusna Begum

PW 3:- Musstt. Rumena Begum

PW 4:- Md. Nur Mahammad Ali

PW 5:- Md. Mahuruddin Ali

B) Plaintiff’s Exhibits:

a. Exhibit 1:- Kabin Nama dated 29.02.2014

b. Exhibit 1(1), (2) and (3):- Signatures.

c. Exhibit 2:- Certified copy of order dated 13.08.2010 passed in Crl. Pet. 278/2010 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court.

Defendants’ witnesses:

DW 1:- Musstt. Munu Begum

Defendants’ Exhibits:

a. Exhibit A, B, C, D :-Atendance sheets dated 22.03.2013, 03.5.2013, 10.12.2012, 15.07.2012

b. Exhibit A(1), B(1), C(1) and D(1), (2), (3) :-Signatures

c. Exhibit E :-Complaint d. Exhibit E (1), (2), (3), (4) :-Signatures e. Exhibit F :-Written statement f. Exhibit F (1), (2), (3),

(4), (5) :-Signatures.

Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat