Page No.# 1/ GAHC010102242025 2025:GAU-AS:7652 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/173/2025 HEMANTA DAS S/O LATE HARKANTA DAS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MALIGAON, BORIPARA,GUWAHATI- 781014, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS KAJI HOBIBUR RAHMAN SON OF KAJI YASIN ALI R/O VILL-BORUNCHERRA F.V., P.O.KUKICHERRA P.S.KATLICHERRA, DIST.HAILAKANDI, ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Das, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.J. Quadir, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 Heard Mr. P. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. M.J. Quadir, the learned counsel appears on Page No.# 2/ behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner herein has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 10.03.2025 whereby the application filed for recalling the order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Money Suit No. 1/2021 was rejected by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”). 3. This Court duly takes note of that on 01.08.2024, the plaintiff’s witnesses were present, but the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner/defendant failed to appear and it is on account of that, the learned Trial Court passed an order that the suit shall proceed to the next stage of defendant’s witnesses. It is under such circumstances, an application was filed being Petition No. 506/04 recalling the order dated 01.08.2024, stating the reasons, as to why, on the day when the witnesses were present the cross-examination could not be done on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. 4. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application taking into account that the explanation so provided was not proper and as such, decline to recall the order dated 01.08.2024. 5. This Court has duly taken note of that there has been certain negligence on the part of the petitioner/defendant in Page No.# 3/ pursuing the said litigation. Be that as it may, on 01.08.2004, the reason why the plaintiff witnesses were not cross-examined was on account of the lawyer of the petitioner/defendant who did not appear. Taking into account that on account of the lawyer the client should not suffer, this Court is of the opinion that a further chance, if given, to the petitioner/ defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses would be in the interest of justice. 6. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that 3 (three) of the plaintiff’s witnesses had appeared before the learned Trial Court, and any order passed at this stage would again result in causing harassment as they would have to appear again. However, if certain cost is imposed, the said witnesses can be compensated. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the reasonable costs ought to be imposed upon the petitioner for the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the instant petition with the following observations and directions. i) The order dated 01.08.2024 whereby the learned Court had closed the cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses is recalled. Page No.# 4/ ii) This Court imposes a cost of Rs. 30,000/- upon the petitioner/defendant which has to be deposited before the learned Trial Court on the next date, so fixed herein after. iii) The stay order passed on 16.05.2025 by which the further proceedings of Money Suit No. 1/2021 pending before the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hailakandi was stayed is vacated and the parties who are duly represented are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 14.07.2025. On the said date, the petitioner/defendant shall deposit the cost of Rs. 30,000/-. Upon such deposit being made, the learned Trial Court shall fix another date for cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses. It is made clear that in the circumstance, the petitioner/defendant do not deposit the cost of Rs. 30,000/-, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in the manner in which it is otherwise proceeding disregarding the observations and directions passed herein. iv) This Court further directs the learned Trial Page No.# 5/ Court that upon deposit of the said amount of Rs. 30,000/-, the learned Trial Court shall fix a date for cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses as per the business of the learned Trial Court. v) The petitioner/defendant shall not be entitled to seek any adjournments when the plaintiff witnesses are present on such date as may be fixed by the learned Trial Court or on such adjourned date of hearing. vi) The plaintiff would be at liberty to file appropriate application for release of the said amount of Rs. 30,000/-, and upon such application, the learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders. JUDGE Comparing Assistant