Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010133132025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/224/2025 SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWALLA S/O LATE RUPCHAND AGARWAL, A R/O DAILY BAZAR, DULIAJAN, P.O. AND P.S.- DULIAJNA, PIN-786602, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS SAHEB SINGH AND SONS PROPERTIES OWNING PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE SCHEDULED PREMISES FOR THE USE AN BENEFIT OF ITS MEMBERS, INCLUDING AND REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER VIZ. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE SAHEB SINGH, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT DAILY BAZAR, DULIAJAN-786602, P.O. AND P.S.- DULIAJAN, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S ROY, MR. Z H BORA,MS. S KAKATI,MR. S BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 18.06.2025 Heard Mr. S. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Page No.# 2/3 Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.05.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div) No.1, Dibrugarh (hereinafter trial Court) in T.S. Case No. 30/2023. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 21.05.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the petition No. 4283/2025, preferred by the petitioner for adjournment on the ground that conducting Advocate for the petitioner was suffering from fever and he was not in a position to come to the Court to take cross-examination of the plaintiff. 4. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel for the petitioner was suffering from cold and fever and he had not taken any treatment from any Doctor, and therefore, no medical documents could not be enclosed with the petition and that the petitioner has shown sufficient ground for adjournment, but, without taking note of the same the learned trial Court has dismissed the petition and thereby, close the cross-examination of P.W.1 and fixed the next date on 19.06.2025, for evidence of D.W. 4.1. Mr. Roy, further submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner may be granted one last opportunity for cross- examination of the P.W.1. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 21.05.2025. It appears that the impugned order, so passed by the learned trial Court, suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court. However, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer prejudice on account of fault of this Advocate. Thus, considering the submission of Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Page No.# 3/3 also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the view that one last opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the P.W.1, else serious prejudice will be caused to him. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, stands interfered with the learned trial Court is directed to afford one last opportunity to cross-examine the P.W.1 by the petitioner, however, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited before the District Legal Services Authority, Dibrugarh, and produce the relevant receipt before the learned trial Court on next date. 7. In terms of above, this CRP stands disposed of at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant