Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010137032025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/235/2025 NIPEN GOGOI AND ANR S/O LATE PUNENDRA AHOM, R/O TONGONA NEAR TONGONA BAZAR, P.O. AND P.S.- TONGONA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2: AJIT GOGOI S/O LATE PUNENDRA AHOM R/O TONGONA NEAR TONGONA BAZAR P.O. AND P.S.- TONGONA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA VERSUS SMTI BINA GOGOI W/O LATE KHAGEN GOGOI, R/O NAKHRAI GAON, P.O.- BORGURI, P.S.- TINSUKIA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786126 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 Heard Mr. N. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Page No.# 2/3 has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 16.08.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.2, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 63/2022. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 16.08.2024, the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) No.2, Tinsukia (hereinafter ‘trial Court’) has dismissed the prayer of the petitioner for allowing them to cross-examine the P.W.1. 4. Mr. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the defendant in Title Suit No. 63/2022, and when the case was fixed for cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioners took an adjournment on 04.04.2024, and the said prayer was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1,500/- and the same was condition precedent for cross-examination of the P.W.1. 5. Mr. Hasan, further submits that on the next date, the conducting counsel of the petitioners was absent and also on account of financial constraint the petitioners could not deposit the cost and thereafter, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.08.2024, debarred the petitioners from cross- examination of the P.W.1. Mr. Hasan, further submits that thereafter, the petitioners have deposited the cost before the learned trial Court and unless the petitioners are allowed to cross-examine of the P.W.1, they will suffer serious prejudice and as such, Mr. Hasan, has contended to grants one opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the P.W.1. 6. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record also perused the impugned order dated 16.08.2024. 7. It appears that on account of absence of the conducting counsel of the Page No.# 3/3 petitioners and also on account of financial constraint the cost could not be deposited in the Court and the same has subsequently been deposited by the petitioners before the learned Court below. 8. Thus considering about and also considering the facts and circumstances on record, this Court is of the view that one opportunity has to be given to the petitioners to cross-examine the P.W.1. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024, is interfered with, and the learned trial Court is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine P.W.1 and thereafter, to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 10. In terms of above, this CRP(IO) is disposed of at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant