Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010151282023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/218/2023 ON THE DEATH OF HARA KRISHNA SAHA ROY HIS LEGAL HEIRS SABITRI SAHA AND 5 ORS 1.1: SMTI SABITRI SAHA W/O HARA KRISHNA SAHA ROY 1.2: SRI ARJUN SAHA S/O LATE HARA KRISHNA SAHA ROY 1.3: SMTI BHARATI ROY W/O SRI MILAN ROY 1.4: SMTI ARATI PAUL W/O SRI LITON PAUL 1.5: SMTI ALPANA ROY W/O SRI PRADIP ROY 1.6: SMTI BAISHALI BHATTACHARYA @ APARNA SAHA ROY W/O UDAY SANKAR BHATTACHARYA ALL ARE/WERE THE RESIDENTS OF LAKHIPUR ROAD (FATAKBAZAR) SILCHAR TOWN PARGONA BORAKPUR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR R/O SONAI ROAD Page No.# 2/5 SILCHAR-5 DISTRICT CACHAR VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF BIRENDRA CHANDRA PAUL, HIS LEGAL HEIRS BIKRAM PAUL AND 2 ORS 1.1:SRI BIKRAM PAUL S/O LATE BIRENDRA CHANDRA PAUL 1.2:SRI BISHNU PAUL S/O LATE BIRENDRA CHANDRA PAUL 1.3:SRI BIPLAB PAUL S/O LATE BIRENDRA CHANDRA PAUL ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DEWANJEE BAZAR SILCHAR TOWN PH. BARAKPAR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DISTRICT CACHAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N SHARMA, B K SINGHA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, MS D.CHAKRABARTY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 07-02-2025 Heard Mr. N Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This is an application filed under article 27 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Court of Munsiff No. 1 Cachar, in title suit No. 42 of 1999. By this impugned order, the application filed by the defendant to not accept further Page No.# 3/5 evidence of the plaintiff was allowed and directed for proceeding the suit for DW evidence. It was further directed to return the evidence of PW-2 to the plaintiff. The case of the petitioner is that this court, by an order dated 27.09.2021 passed in CRP(IO)/265/2017, allowed the plaintiff to file evidence before 30.10.2021 on payment of cost of Rs 5000/-. Accordingly, on payment of the cost of Rs 5000, he filed the evidence of PW-1 who was cross-examined and discharged. The order dated 27.09.2021 further provides that no further adjournment shall be given to the petitioner without payment of a cost of Rs 1000/-, However, the plaintiff made a prayer for allowing him to adduce further evidence. Accordingly, by an order dated 27.09.2022, the learned Court allowed by fixing 01.12.2022 for evidence. However, on 01.12.2022, the plaintiff sought for adjournment for filing further evidence and at the same time, the defendant also filed a petition and contended that the plaintiff should not be allowed to adduce further evidence. On the said date, the prayer for adjournment was allowed and next date was fixed on 12.01.2023 for hearing of PW-2. However, on the said date, the plaintiff did not pay the cost of Rs 1000/- as directed by the Hon’ble Court in CRP(IO)/265/2017. On 12.01.2023, the plaintiff side has filed examination-in-chief of PW-2 in affidavit and a copy was furnished to the defendant by fixing 27.02.2023 for hearing the cross of PW-2. Ultimately, on 11.05.2023, the application filed by the defendant was heard and allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Court by an order dated 27.09.2021 has stated that no further adjournment would be granted. However, on payment of Rs 1000/-, the petitioner was allowed to seek Page No.# 4/5 adjournment. Therefore, on 01.12.2021 when the adjournment prayer was allowed, the Court did not ask for payment of the cost. However, he is ready to pay the cost of Rs 1000/- as directed by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the learned trial court has allowed him to adduce further evidence on 27.09.2022, however, by an impugned order, the learned trial Court has directed for proceeding of the matter from the stage of DW evidence and the evidence of PW-2 has been returned. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the Hon’ble High Court in his order dated 27.09.2021 has directed that no further adjournment should be given to the plaintiff/petitioner without payment of cost of Rs 1000/-. It was duty on the part of the plaintiff/petitioner to pay a cost of Rs 1000/- while seeking adjournment. That having not done, the petitioner is debarred for adducing further evidence of PW-2 and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial court. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not yet taken back the evidence of PW-2. Therefore, it is directed that the evidence of PW-2 is accepted on payment of cost of Rs 10,000/-. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be given to the petitioner. It is also made clear that except for PW-1 and PW-2, no further evidence from the plaintiff side shall be allowed to be adduced. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 03.03.2025 on which date the learned Court shall fix date for cross-examination of PW-2. In view of the above, this revision petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant