Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010091242025 2025:GAU-AS:6171 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/170/2025 MD JAHIDUL ISLAM @ JAHIDUL ISLAM MULLAH S/O MD. JALIL MULLAH, VILL- BARBARADI, P.O.- BHOGERPAR, DIST- BARPETA (ASSAM), PIN-781302 VERSUS MD IMRAN SIKDER S/O MD. INNAS SIKDER, VILL- MALIPARA, P.O.- CHENIMARI, DIST- BARPETA (ASSAM), PIN-781305 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. Bhuyan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 16.05.2025 Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the order dated 13.03.2025 passed in Misc (J) Case No. Page No.# 2/3 89/2024 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) had in exercise of its discretion condoned the delay of 96 days in preferring the application under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) for restoration of the suit which was dismissed for default on 30.01.2024. 3. This Court has duly taken note of the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court and taking into account the fact that the learned Trial Court had exercised its discretion in the manner envisaged under law, this Court would not like to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction, as this Court does not find any perversity or anything shocking. 4. Be that as it may, this Court further finds it relevant to observe that on 30.01.2024, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against which the application has been filed under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code along with an application for condonation of delay. This Court is surprised to take note of that the learned Trial Court vide the order dated 30.01.2024 had dismissed the suit for default that too when the suit was not called on for hearing. 5. This Court duly takes note of the provisions of Order IX Rule 8 of the Code wherein the power is being conferred upon the Court to dismiss a suit only when the suit is called on for hearing. It is seen from the very impugned order that the suit was fixed for SBPH and the suit had not reached the stage of hearing. 6. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, directs the learned Trial Page No.# 3/3 Court to take the application filed under Order IX Rule 9 as an application under Section 151 of the Code and restore the suit to the file of the Court taking into account that it was a mistake committed by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the suit for default on a date which was not fixed for hearing. 7. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands dismissed. 8. The Registry shall forthwith intimate the learned Trial Court about this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant