Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010204192025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/393/2025 RAJIB AHMED S/O LATE AFTABUDDIN AHMED, R/O KUMAR PATTY, WARD NO. 2, GOLAGHAT TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM VERSUS JINNA HAQUE @ DEEP HAQUE AND ANR S/O POJIRUL HAQUE @ SWEET HAQUE, R/O GOLAGHAT TOWN, NEAR RAILWAY GATE NO. 1, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 2:POJIRUL HAQUE S/O UNKNOWN R/O GOLAGHAT TOWN NEAR RAILWAY GATE NO. 1 P.O. P.S. AND DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R PHUKAN, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 17.09.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. R. Phukan for the petitioner, Rajib Ahmed who has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as he is aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Div) No. 2 in connection with Title Suit No. 10/2022. 2. It is averred that the plaintiff has been debarred from adducing plaintiff's evidence. It is submitted that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if he is not allowed to adduce evidence. The plaintiff has taken adjournments and the learned Trial Court has passed orders dated 01.06.2024, 06.07.2024, 01.08.2024 and 22.08.2024, allowing the adjournments and the case was thereafter fixed for plaintiff's evidence. However, on 07.02.2025, the learned Trial Court rejected the plaintiff's submission relating to his delay owing to chronic kidney disease and prostatomegaly and the case was then fixed for defendant's evidence. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff when the plaintiff was granted adjournments on 06.07.2024 as well as on 01.08.2024 and the plaintiff was contemplating to prefer a revision against the costs imposed upon him. However, owing to his ailment, the plaintiff was unable to prefer a revision and the plaintiff approached the Trial Court to review the order but the Trial Court declined to review the order and this case proceeded to the next stage i.e., defence evidence. 3. It is submitted that the entire Title Suit would be Infructuous if the plaintiff is not allowed to adduce evidence. It appears that an opportunity may be accorded to the plaintiff to adduce plaintiff’s evidence. The plaintiff is also Page No.# 3/3 willing to deposit the cost imposed upon him. 4. For the interest of justice, the order dated 07.02.2025 is set aside. 5. The plaintiff is allowed to adduce plaintiff’s evidence under the condition that the plaintiff would not delay in adducing evidence. 6. The cost imposed upon the plaintiff is to be deposited as per order passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. In terms of the above observation, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant