Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010181332025 2025:GAU-AS:11042 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/338/2025 RAJIV DUTTA S/O LATE AMARESH DUTTA, R/O HOUSE NO. 3, BISHNU PATH, BYE LANE- 1, RUKMINIGAON, P.S.- DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN CODE-781022, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS SMTI PADMAKSHI PATOWARY W/O LATE DEEPAK PATOWARY, R/O HOUSE NO-38, BHUBAN ROAD, UZAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781001, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY, R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 20.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Orders dated 22.01.2025 and 24.04.2025, passed by the learned Civil Page No.# 2/3 Judge (Junior Division), No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati in T. S. Case No.51/2017. 3. The petitioner being the tenant is the defendant before the Trial Court. He claims that he was regularly paying the rent in the Court under Section 4/5 of the Urban Area Rent Control Act. The petitioner wanted to show before the Trial Court that he was regularly paying rent before the Court and, therefore he must not be recalled. For that matter, the defendant filed an application before the Court calling for the concerned N.J. Cases. The Trial Court allowed the prayer. Thereafter, on some subsequent dates, the Presiding Officer of the Court was absent for training but the N.J. Cases were not received till then. 4. Subsequently on 22.01.2025, the Trial Court held that the petitioner did not take appropriate steps to call for the records of N.J. Cases, therefore, his prayer to call for the N.J. cases was rejected. Thereafter, on 24.04.2025, the petitioner filed another application before the Trial Court seeking withdrawal of the earlier order that was also rejected. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. This Court is of the opinion that at this stage, going to issue notice to the respondent would not serve any purpose. The petitioner being the defendant wanted to tell before the Trial Court that he is not a defaulter and was regularly paying the rent in the Court, therefore he deserves to be given one opportunity to contest this case. 7. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. 8. The Trial Court is directed to give adequate opportunity to the defendant to Page No.# 3/3 take steps to call for the case records of the N.J. Cases and thereafter the Trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the case. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant