Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010100762025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/215/2025 VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA S/O SRI RAMESHWAR GUPTA SHOP NO A-1 SHREE SHAKTI MARKET, GNB ROAD, NEAR KUMHAR PATTY, PO, PS AND DISTRICT TINSUKIA, ASSAM REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NAMELY SRI RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA. VERSUS M/S SHIV KUMAR JALAN AND 3 ORS. AN AOP FIRM (ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS), HAVING ITS OFFICE AT G.N.B. ROAD, TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY SRI SHIV KUMAR JALAN AND HIS TWO SONS. 2:SHIV KUMAR JALAN S/O LATE LAXMINARAYAN JALAN R/O GNB ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN PO PS AND DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM 3:SUMIT JALAN S/O SRI SHIV KUMAR JALAN R/O GNB ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN PO PS AND DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM 4:AMIT KUMAR JALAN Page No.# 2/5 S/O SRI SHIV KUMAR JALAN R/O GNB ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN PO PS AND DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. SAILENDRA DEKA, MS L RONGPIPI,MR JITENDRA DAS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 18.06.2025 Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.03.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Tinsukia (trial court hereinafter), in Title Suit No. 28/2020. 2.1. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 18.03.2025, the learned trial court had dismissed the Petition No. 709/2025, filed by the petitioner herein. 3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 28/2020, for evicting him from the suit premises. Thereafter, he, as defendant, filed his written statement and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Mr. Gupta further submits that during the course of hearing, he filed a petition for calling of the record of Misc. Rent Cases as well as the record of G.R. Case No. 294/2005. Page No.# 3/5 But, the learned trial court, vide order dated 18.03.2025, was pleased to dismiss the said petition and being aggrieved, this present petition is preferred for issuing direction to the learned trial court for allowing him to call for the record of Misc. Rent Cases and the record of G.R. Case No. 294/2005. 4. Per-contra, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already been allowed to call for the said records and also he was given sufficient time to call the record of Misc. Rent Cases and the record of G.R. Case No. 294/2005, but, the petitioner has failed to take steps within the stipulated period. Mr. Deka further submits that the title suit is pending since long for evidence of PW1 and that the respondents have not disputed the rent being deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial court. Mr. Deka further submits that the learned trial court had also allowed the petitioner to produce the certified copy of the G.R. Case No. 294/2005 and the Misc. Rent Cases and that this petition is being filed only to delay the proceeding of Title Suit No. 28/2020. 5. Mr. Deka refers to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohit Suresh Harchandrai and Others vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5754- 5755/2025, especially paragraph No. 13, to contend that the courts must ensure that on the part of the courts, no party is made to suffer. Under such circumstances, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 and also the decision of Mohit Suresh (Supra). Page No.# 4/5 7. It appears from the aforementioned impugned order that the learned trial court, vide order dated 03.06.2022, has allowed the Misc. (J) Case No. 31/2022 filed by the petitioner herein, to call the record of G.R. Case No. 294/2005 and some rent cases of 2000 – 2022. But, the petitioner did not take any steps for calling of the aforesaid records and it is only on 10.04.2024, during cross examination of PW1, which was pending since 26.09.2023, the petitioner side brought to the notice of the learned trial court about the order dated 03.06.2022, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 31/2022 and accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to call for the G.R. Case No. 294/2005 but not the records. Thereafter, on 04.06.2024, the dealing assistant of record room of CJM establishment informed the court that due to shifting of the record room, the aforesaid records could not be found out and therefore, prayed for some time and thereafter, the learned trial court had allowed the petitioner to take steps again on 04.11.2024. But, the petitioner did not take steps and thereafter, the learned trial court decided to proceed with the cross-examination of PW1 and dismissed the Petition No. 709/2025. However, the learned trial court had granted liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine the PW1 and to confront him if the certified copies of the aforementioned records were brought to the court. 8. In view of the given facts and circumstances and also in view of the submission of Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents, this court finds that the impugned order dated 18.03.2025, suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this court. 9. The title suit is pending for cross-examination of PW1 since 26.09.2023 and the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity, but, he slept over the same and while the learned trial court decided to proceed with the cross-examination again, he agitated the matter. Page No.# 5/5 10. Thus, because of lapse and laxity on the part of the petitioner, this court is of the view that giving further chance to call the aforementioned records will cause serious prejudice to the respondents herein. 11. In the case of Mohit Suresh (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the courts, being the courts of law and justice, are duty bound to ensure that on account of the courts, no party is made to suffer. 12. Under the given facts and circumstances, this court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant