Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010157772025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/284/2025 DR. SURJYA KAMAL BHUYAN S/O LATE LAKHESWAR BHUYAN, P/R/O CLUB ROAD, P.S. AND DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM. P/R/A BARSHA HEIGHTS ART TWELVE APARTMENTS, DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES VERSUS DIGANTA BARUAH S/O LATE RADHA BARUAH, R/O SONAARI GAON, NA-ALI DHEKIAJULI, P.O.- DHEKIAJULI, CLUB ROAD TINIALI, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER 30.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat in Title Suit No. 40/2013. On 17.12.2024, the case was posted before the trial court for cross-examination of the witnesses of the defendant by the plaintiff. On that day, application was filed by the plaintiff whereby it was informed that the learned counsel for the plaintiff sustained multiple fractures in his legs. On the other hand, three applications were filed showing the absence of three defendants. The case was pending before the trial court for the last ten years. One DW has already examined and discharged from the cross-examination. Two other DWs were to be cross- examined. Since the case was pending for the last ten years, the learned trial court refused the prayer made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and closed the hearing of defendants’ evidence and expunged the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Nabin Mahato and Mridumoni Dhekial Phukan. Ultimately, the case was posted for argument. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both the sides. It appears that the trial court seemed to be in a hurry while passing the impugned order. The trial court should have been given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the DWs. The impugned order is bad in law and hence, the same is set aside and quashed. trial court is directed to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the DWs Nabin Mahato and Mridumoni Dhekial Phukan and, thereafter, shall proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Page No.# 3/3 Further, the witness, who was partly cross-examined shall also be cross-examined completely. With the above, the present civil revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant