Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010070082025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/115/2025 SHRI KAMAL KUMAR CHANGKAKOTI S/O-LATE KHANENDRA NATH CHANGKAKOTI,R/O-WARD NO.8, P.S AND P.O NORTH LAKHIMPUR,PIN-787001, DIST-LAKHIMPUR ,ASSAM VERSUS NORTH LAKHIMPUR BENGALI ASSOCIATION ALIAS BENGALI ASSOCIATION ALIAS NITYA MANDIR N.T ROAD,WARD NO 6,P.O AND P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR,DIST- LAKHIMPUR,ASSAM,PIN-787001,REP. BY THR PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DAS, MR K AGARWAL,MS. M BORDOLOI,MR. N I KHAN,MR. T SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 02.04.2025 Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/4 2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the orders dated 17.03.2025 and 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, North Lakhimpur, in Title Suit No.26/2010. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 17.03.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, North Lakhimpur, has rejected the petition filed by the present petitioner for adjournment and debarred the defendant from cross-examination of the PWs and thereafter, expunged the cross-examination of PWs and vide impugned order dated 21.03.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, North Lakhimpur, has fixed the case for evidence-on- affidavit of DWs and rejected the petition for allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. 3. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that on 17.03.2025, the witnesses of the plaintiff could not be cross-examined by the petitioner as his engaged counsel was absent on that day on account of his ill health, but the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition and expunged the cross-examination of the PWs and thereafter, on 21.03.2025 another petition, being Petition No.468/2025 was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the PWs, on the ground that the engaged counsel, namely, Biman Bora was in Guwahati for his medical treatment, enclosing some medical documents in support of the said claim, but the learned Trial Court has dismissed the aforesaid petition and thereafter, list the matter on 04.04.2025 for evidence-on-affidavit of the DWs. 3.1 Mr. 3.1 Mr. Agarwal further submits that though the case was instituted in the year 2010, yet, on various occasions the case was stayed by this Court for almost 7 years and thereafter, the petitioner herein availed only two adjournments, though as per law he is entitled to 3 adjournments and that unless the impugned orders dated 17.03.2025 and 21.03.2025 are set aside and quashed and the petitioner is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, then serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner and therefore, Mr. Page No.# 3/4 Agarwal has contended to allow this petition. 4. Having heard the submission of Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned orders dated 17.03.2025 and 21.03.2025. 5. It appears that vide impugned order dated 17.03.2025 while rejecting the petition No.431/2025 for adjournment, filed by the petitioner, he was also debarred from cross- examining the PWs and expunged the cross-examination of PWs and vide impugned order dated 21.03.2025, the learned Trial Court has also dismissed the petition No.465/2025 filed by the petitioner for allowing him to cross-examine the witnesses on the ground that the case is pending since the year 2010. It also appears from the record that the petitioner has availed only two adjournments, first one on 30.01.2025 and the second one on 06.02.2025. 6. It is to be noted here that right to fair trial is a fundamental right and in a fair trial fair opportunity has to be given to the parties to defend their case and denial of fair opportunity amounts to denial of fair trial. It is well settled that right to cross-examine a witness apart from being a natural right is a statutory right. Section 137 of the Evidence Act provides for examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination and Section 138 of the Evidence Act confers a right on the adverse party to cross-examine the witnesses, who has been examined in chief subject of course to expression of his desire to the said effect. But, indisputably such an opportunity has to be granted [See: Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in (2009) 7 SCC 104]. 7. In the case in hand, the witnesses of the respondent herein have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, but after granting two adjournments, the learned Trial Court has refused to grant further adjournment in spite of sufficient ground being assigned for the same, and thereafter, debarred the petitioner from cross-examination of the witnesses Page No.# 4/4 and as such, the right of the petitioner, to cross-examine the witnesses is violated here in this case along with his right to fair trial and as such, the impugned orders dated 17.03.2025, and 21.03.2025, fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and therefore, both the orders stand set aside and quashed. 8. The learned Trial Court is directed to afford two opportunities to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, which of course subject to deposite of Rs.10,000/- being the cost which shall be deposited before the learned Trial Court before cross-examination of the witnesses. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed i.e. on 04.04.2025. 9. In terms of above, the civil revision petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE