Sikkim HC Directs Local Commissioner to Appear as Court Witness in Karmapa Trust Dispute

The High Court of Sikkim modified the petitioners' prayer and directed the Local Commissioner to be summoned as a court witness, allowing all parties to cross-examine him on his repair report.

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, sitting singly at the High Court of Sikkim, Gangtok, disposed of a writ petition filed by Karmapa Charitable Trust and others under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging a trial court order that had refused to implead the Local Commissioner as a respondent in an ongoing title suit. Rather than restoring the impleadment prayer, the High Court took a modified course: it directed that the Local Commissioner, Shri Jigmee Tshering Bhutia, be summoned as a “Court Witness” and examined on his Report dated 26-02-2025, with all parties permitted to cross-examine him if they chose to do so. The order was passed on 29 May 2026, the same day it was heard and uploaded.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The underlying proceedings are Title Suit No.05 of 2025, pending before the Learned Principal District Judge, Gangtok, in which the Karmapa Charitable Trust and others are arrayed against the State of Sikkim and others. In the course of that suit, the petitioners filed an application dated 10-04-2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Within those proceedings, they separately moved under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to implead the Local Commissioner, Shri Jigmee Tshering Bhutia, as a respondent to the Order XXXIX Rule 2A application.

By its order dated 29-04-2026, the Principal District Judge declined that prayer. The trial court held that the Local Commissioner was neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the proceedings, and found no jurisdictional basis to implead him. The petitioners challenged that refusal before the High Court under Article 227.

The Legal Issue

The core question was whether the Local Commissioner had any role to play in the Order XXXIX Rule 2A application, and if so, in what capacity. The petitioners' original position was that impleadment as a respondent was necessary for complete adjudication. Before the High Court, however, Senior Counsel for the petitioners modified that prayer: rather than seeking impleadment as a party, they sought to have the Local Commissioner examined as a witness to the application.

Respondent No.3's Senior Counsel, Mr. Anmole Prasad, raised two objections. First, he argued that the Local Commissioner should not be drawn into a quasi-criminal proceeding under Order XXXIX Rule 2A. Second, he contended that if the petitioners were content to examine the Local Commissioner merely as a witness rather than implead him as a respondent, they could have done so before the trial court itself, without approaching the High Court under Article 227.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai considered the submissions, the impugned order, and the pleadings and documents on record. The court's reasoning turned on what the petitioners were actually seeking. In the court's view, the petitioners' purpose was to elicit information from the Local Commissioner about repairs carried out by him in the disputed area over the course of a decade — information relevant to complete adjudication of the matter.

The court found no negative connotations in that modified prayer. It observed that the repairs had evidently been carried out under the watch of the Local Commissioner, making his evidence material. On that basis, the court declined to treat the modified prayer as objectionable and chose to allow it in the form of a court witness direction rather than impleadment.

The court did not accept the respondent's argument that the petitioners should have returned to the trial court. By allowing the modified prayer at the Article 227 stage itself, the High Court resolved the dispute without remanding the matter.

Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the Local Commissioner, Shri Jigmee Tshering Bhutia, be summoned as a Court Witness in the Order XXXIX Rule 2A application pending before the Principal District Judge, Gangtok. He is to be examined with regard to his Report dated 26-02-2025. All parties are permitted to cross-examine him if they deem it necessary. A copy of the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the trial court for information and compliance.