Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010184662024 2025:GAU-AS:5729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/339/2024 HARI DEVI KALITA W/O- LATE ANANDA DAS, R/O- MIRZA, P.O. MIRZA, PALASHBARI, PIN- 781125, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS PADMINI KUMARI W/O- LATE KHAGEN KUMAR, R/O- MIRZA (KRISHNA NAGAR), P.O. MIRZA, PALASHBARI, PIN- 781125, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K BHUYAN, MR R K MOUR,MR. R GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K M HASSAN, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG 05/05/2025 Heard Mr. R K Mour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K M Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon in Misc. (J) Case No. 113/2024. Page No.# 2/5 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent as a plaintiff filed one Title Suit being Title Suit No. 212/2021 against the petitioner which is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon. The respondent was the tenant in respect of the suit premises. After receipt of summon in the Title Suit, the petitioner had appeared and filed her written statement along with counter claim, ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent, permanent injunction etc. against which the respondent had filed her written statement. 4. Thereafter, the respondent had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 230/2021 seeking interim injunction against the petitioner, her men, agents, servant etc. from disposing/evicting the respondent from the suit premises and also disturbing peaceful possession over the suit premises. Against the said Misc. (J) Case No. 230/2021, the petitioner had filed her written objection. 5. The learned Trial Court was pleased to pass order dated 09.01.2024 in the said Misc. (J) Case No. 230/2021 restraining the petitioner, her men and agents etc. from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the tenanted premises till disposal of the main title suit. 6. Thereafter, the respondent filed two applications, one bearing Petition No. 2010 dated 20.07.2024 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking police assistance for implementation of injunction order dated 09.01.2021 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 230/2021. The another petition No. 2009 dated 20.07.2024 was filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for punishing the petitioner for alleged violation of the aforesaid injunction order dated 09.01.2021 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 230/2021. 7. The said applications were registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 113/2024 and the learned Trial Court by order dated 20.07.2024 directed the respondent to furnish copy of the said petitions to the petitioner by fixing the next date on 07.08.2024 for objection/hearing on petition Nos. 2009 and 2010. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner engaged advocate, Mr. Firuj Khan, to represent her in the aforesaid Title Suit and Misc. (J) Case No. 230/2021, but on 03.08.2024, her said advocate withdrawn himself from the said case and returned the brief to the petitioner. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner had engaged another Advocate, Mr. K K Bhuyan, to represent her in T.S. No. 212/2021. On 07.08.2024, the respondent served the copy of the petition Nos. 2009 and 2010. At the time of receiving the said copies, the junior colleague of Mr. K.K Bhuyan, informed the Page No.# 3/5 learned Trial Court that since Mr. K K Bhuyan has newly been engaged in the suit, he will file Vakalatnama on the next date of title suit. The next date was fixed on 31.08.2024 for written objection/hearing on the petitions. 10. It is further submitted that the newly engaged Advocate of the petitioner, Mr. K K Bhuyan’s mother expired on 20.08.2024 for which Mr. K.K Bhuyan had to leave for Biswanath Chariali and returned to Guwahati only on 03.09.2024 after completion of the rituals on account of death of his mother. For the said reasons, the newly engaged Advocate, Mr. K K Bhuyan, was unable to prepare the written objection and also could not appear the Court. However, upon his intimation, one of his junior colleagues appeared and filed the petition No. 2556 on 31.08.2024, informing the learned Trial Court that the petitioner had engaged Advocate, Mr. K K Bhuyan in the case for preparing and filing objection. However, due to death of his mother, he has left for Biswanath Chariali and as such, he was unable to file written objection on behalf of the petitioner and also the Advocate was unable to conduct hearing and for the above ground sought for some time for the same. The Junior Advocate had also verbally informed the learned Trial Court that the Vakalatnama will be filed on the next date. However, by an impugned order 31.08.2024, the said petition No. 2556 was rejected by the learned Trial Court. 11. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon, the petitioner is before this Court by filing this revision petition amongst others on the ground that the petition No. 2556 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment have been rejected by the learned Trial Court without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to present her version in the case and without ascertaining as to whether the petitioner had violated the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 230/2021. 12. The learned Trial Court had passed the impugned order dated 31.08.2024 for implementation of the order dated 09.01.2024 which according to the petitioner is perverse and are not sustainable in the eye of law. For the reasons stated above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2024. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent by referring to the records submits that as per the direction of the learned Trial Court on 20.07.2024, the respondents has furnished a copy of the petition to the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner herein on 07.08.2024 on which date the learned Trial Court has fixed the next date of the case on 31.08.2024 for written objection/hearing on petition Nos. 2009 and 2010, and on 31.08.2024 when the counsel Page No.# 4/5 for the opposite party did not appear nor filed any written objection despite of receipt of a copy of the petition, the learned Trial Court has rejected the petition No. 2556/2024 on the ground that that there was no Vakalatnama filed by Mr. K K Bhuyan, Advocate. Further, despite of restraining order, the opposite party was found possessing over the suit property, therefore, the Palashbari Police was directed to visit the aforesaid premises and to break open the lock of the tenanted premises (if the same is under lock and key) and to make necessary arrangement for handing over the possession of tenanted premises to the petitioner /respondent herein as per law. 14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the documents available on record. 15. On perusal of the records, it appears that the petition No. 2009 was registered on 20.07.2024 under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC, and petition No. 2010 was registered on 20.07.2024 under Section 151 CPC for police assistance. On the same date, it was directed to furnish the copy to the opposite party/ petitioner herein. Accordingly, a copy of the petition was received by the counsel for the present petitioner on 07.08.2024, on which the next date of the case was fixed on 31.08.2024 for written objection/hearing on petition Nos. 2009 and 2010. 16. From the records, it further appears that due to the death of his mother, the learned engaged counsel, Mr. K K Bhuyan, had to leave the station for Biswanath Chariali and on his behalf, his junior filed a petition No. 2556 praying for adjournment stating therein that the engaged counsel of the opposite party, Mr. K K Bhuyan, will not be able to file written objection or to take part in the hearing of the case on account of death of his mother who expired on that day. However, the learned Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that no Vakalatnama has been filed till date, and by the same order, the prayer of the respondent was allowed, granting relief as prayed for directing the Officer-in-Charge of Palashbari Police Station to visit the tenanted premises and to break open the lock of the tenanted premises (if the same is under lock and key) and to make necessary arrangement for handing over the tenanted premises to the petitioner as per law. From the above, it appears that while passing the above order, the learned Trial Court has not considered the prayer made by the Junior Counsel of Mr. K K Bhuyan for adjournment, on the ground that the engaged counsel for the petitioner left the station to attend his mother’s death. The ground for Advocate, Mr. K.K Bhuyan remaining absence and not unable to file objection on 31.08.2024 on account of death of his mother seem genuine, and it seems it was not a deliberate on the part of advocate. However, by rejecting the prayer for adjournment, no opportunity was afforded to the opposite party/petitioner herein to contest Page No.# 5/5 the case before passing the impugned order. For the mistake or failure on the part of the advocate to appear in the Court, the litigant should not suffer. 17. In view of the above, however without going into the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to the opposite party/petitioner herein before passing the impugned order. In light of the above discussion and the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the order dated 31.08.2024 requires interference. Accordingly, it is interfered with. 18. As a result, the order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 113/2024 is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to proceed with the matter and dispose it of after giving an opportunity to the opposite party/petitioner herein for filing objection and for placing his side of the case. 19. With the above, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant