Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010249962024 2025:GAU-AS:252 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/544/2024 BABUL CHAUHAN S/O LAXMI NARAYAN CHAUHAN, R/O VILL- SAHEBGANJ, P.S.- GOLAKGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI (ASSAM), PIN-783334 VERSUS SMTI. SARASWATI CHAUHAN D/O LATE HARE KRISHNA CHAUHAN, R/O VILL- JHILKAKHAT, P.O.- KABIRALI, P.S.-UDALGURI, DIST- UDALGURI, B.T.R., ASSAM, PIN-784525 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M J BARUAH, MR. A. ALI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 08.01.2025 Heard Mr. M.J. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the orders dated 17.09.2024 and 27.09.2024, passed by the Page No.# 2/3 learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri, in F.C.T.S. (N) Case No. 1/2024. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 17.09.2024, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri (‘Family Court’, for short) had dismissed the suit for default for failure to take fresh steps by the petitioner upon the respondent, and vide impugned order dated 27.09.2024, the learned Family Court had dismissed the petition No. 631/2024, filed by the petitioner for restoration of F.C.T.S. (N) Case No. 1/2024, which was dismissed for failing to take steps by the petitioner, vide order dated 17.09.2024. 4. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had instituted F.C.T.S. (N) Case No. 01/2024, for declaring his marriage with the respondent null and void and upon the said suit, the learned Family Court issued notice to the respondent and directed the petitioner to take steps upon the respondent. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.05.2024, the learned Family Court had directed the petitioner to take fresh steps upon the respondent, but due to miscommunication between the petitioner and his counsel, the petitioner could not take steps, for which the learned Family Court had dismissed the suit, vide impugned order dated 17.09.2024, and thereafter, the petitioner had preferred a petition on 27.09.2024, for restoration of the same, but, the learned Family Court had dismissed the same, and that the petitioner is also illiterate and that due to the fault of his counsel, he should not suffer, and therefore, Mr. Baruah has contended to give another chance to the petitioner to take steps upon the respondent, pursuant to the order dated 30.05.2024. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned orders dated 17.09.2024 and 27.09.2024. Page No.# 3/3 6. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 17.09.2024, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri had dismissed the suit for failing to take steps by the petitioner upon the respondent and vide impugned order dated 27.09.2024, the learned Family Court had dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for restoration of the suit. It is also to be noted here that now it is well settled that for the fault of the counsel the litigant should not suffer. 7. Having taken note of the submission of Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the view that another chance is required to given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 17.09.2024 and 27.09.2024, stand set aside and quashed. 8. The learned trial Court is directed to restore the case to file and thereafter, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Family Court on or before 24.01.2025. 9. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant