State of Assam v. Union of India and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dipak Misra
A. M. Khanwilkar
D. Y. Chandrachud
Judgment Date: 2018-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: The application for production is allowed. The Interlocutory Application is disposed of with the direction that the Survey of India witness may produce the described maps. The Court noted that it has not ruled on relevance or admissibility, and it left open the possibility for Nagaland to raise objections as advised. The decision advances ongoing fact-finding in the boundary dispute, subject to separate challenges to admissibility.
Final Disposition: Interlocutory Application disposed of; production of maps allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Assam

Respondents

Union of India and Ors
State of Nagaland

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ashok H. Desai
• K. N. Balagopal
• Manoj Goel
• Shuvodeep Roy
• Dasarath Deka
• P. Parmeswaran
• Mohit D. Ram
• G. Ramakrishna Prasad
• Suyodhan Byrapaneni
• Mohd. Wasay Khan
• B Ms. Filza Moonis
• A. P. Mukund
• Ms. Nitya Nambiar
• Mohinder Saini
• Jitender Saini
• Visto Rio
• Anil Shrivastav
• Rituraj Choudhary
• S. Wasim A. Qadri
• Ms. Binu Tamta
• Ms. Bharati Tyagi
• B. V. Balram Das

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court Interlocutory Application pertains to a boundary dispute between the States of Assam and Nagaland. Recording of PW 9, Md. Shafiqur Rahman of the Survey of India, began on 30 January 2017, during which 33 certified topo-sheets were produced. Assam sought production of additional topographical maps (F maps) listed in paragraph 4 of the application. Nagaland objected on the ground that leave for production had already been granted by this Court, and that production of further documents should not be allowed at this stage. After considering the submissions, the Court found no reason to disallow the production of the maps. It held that the evidence of PW 9 is ongoing and that the production of the maps by the Survey of India witness should be allowed in the interest of justice. The documents were not in Assam’s possession, and the previous order does not preclude Assam from seeking production at this stage. The Court clarified that it has not determined the documents’ relevance or admissibility and that Nagaland may raise objections as advised. Result: the application for production is allowed; the Interlocutory Application is disposed of, with the maps to be produced for the ongoing proceedings, subject to separate objections on relevance/admissibility.

Provisions of Law Cited

Order XI Rule 14, CPCOrder VII Rule 14, CPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

State of Assam argued for the production of additional topographical maps (F maps) described in paragraph 4 of the application. It contended that these maps are not in Assam’s possession, and the Court’s earlier leave does not preclude seeking further production at this stage. It relied on Order XI Rule 14 (production of documents) and urged that production be allowed in the interests of justice to facilitate accurate boundary determination.

Contentions of Respondents

State of Nagaland argued that leave for production had already been granted and that no additional maps should be produced at this stage. It cautioned against expanding the scope of the earlier order, and urged that relevance and admissibility of any further documents be considered before production, preserving procedural safeguards.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

593 [2018] 6 S.C.R. 593 STATE OF ASSAM A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (IA No.80789 of 2017 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1988) ## JULY 20, 2018 B ## **[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]** _Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XI r. 14, Order VII r. 14 – Production of documents-topographical maps – Boundary_ C _dispute between Assam and Nagaland – Production of certified copy of topo-sheets by a person concerned from Survey of India – However State of Assam sought production of some more topographical maps – Objection raised by State of Nagaland that leave for production of documents had been sought and granted by this Court and production of additional documents cannot be_ D _granted at the present stage – Held: Documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage – Production of the documents by the witness for the Survey of India should be allowed in the interest of justice._ D E ## **The issue pertains to production of topographical maps in a boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland.** ## **Disposing of the Interlocutory Application, the Court** **HELD: There is no reason to disallow the production of the maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of the documents by the witness for the Survey of India should be allowed in the interest of justice. The documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. However, it is clarified that the relevance or admissibility of the documents is not dealt with. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised. [Para 3] [596-B-C]** F G H 593 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. A CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application No.80789 of 2017 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1988. Ashok H. Desai, K. N. Balagopal, Sr. Advs., Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy. Dasarath Deka, P. Parmeswaran, Mohit D. Ram, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Mohd. Wasay Khan, B Ms. Filza Moonis, A. P. Mukund, Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Mohinder Saini, Jitender Saini, Visto Rio, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Choudhary, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Bharati Tyagi, B. V. Balram Das, Advs. for the appearing parties. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.** 1. The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject matter of the Suit before this Court. Recording of the evidence of PW 9 – Md.Shafiqur Rahman of the Survey of India commenced on 30 January 2017. During D the course of his examination on 31 January 2017, PW 9 produced certified copies of 33 Topo-sheets. In the process of filing the relevant topographical maps, the State of Assam seeks to cause the production of some more maps. 2. On 2 July 2015, this Court allowed the production of certain E maps. According to the State of Assam the maps are maintained in the Head Office of the Survey of India at Dehradun and are not within its possession or control. During the course of the examination of PW 9,the State of Assam, by its letters dated 24 February 2017, 7 March 2017 and 6 April 2017 sought the production of certain topographical - F maps. In response to the letter dated 6 April 2017, PW 9 sought to produce the maps on 18 July 2017. However, this was objected to by the State of Nagaland on the ground that since leave for the production of documents had been sought and was granted by this Court, the witness cannot be allowed to produce additional documents at the present stage. It is in view of the objection of Nagaland that the present application has - G been filed. The relief which has been sought is the production of the maps described in paragraph 4 of the application which is extracted below: H STATE OF ASSAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 595 [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.] **==> picture [310 x 137] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----** A Sl.No Topo Map Nos. & Scale Sl.No Topo Map Nos. & Scale . . 1. 83G/13-(1 inch to a Mile) 5. 83G-(1 inch to 4 Miles) (1923) 2. 83J/6-(1 inch to a Mile) (1937) 6. 83J-(1 inch to 4 Miles) B 3. 83J/9-(1 inch to a Mile) (1938) 7. 83N-(1 inch to 4 Miles) (1936) 4. 83J/13-(1 inch to a Mile) (1925) **----- End of picture text -----** Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus: **“** 14. Production of documents— It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.” C D Order VII Rule 14 provides thus: ## **“Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies** (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. E F (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is[1] presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. G H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R. A (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 3. Having heard learned counsel and upon evaluating the objection of the State of Nagaland, we see no reason to disallow the production of B the maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of the above documents by the witness for the Survey of India should, in our view, be allowed in the interest of justice. The documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. We, however, clarify that we have not dealt with the relevance or admissibility C of the documents. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all appropriate defences. D 4. Subject to what has been stated above, the application for production is allowed. The Interlocutory Application shall accordingly stand disposed of. Nidhi Jain IA disposed of. E F G H