Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010264252024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/546/2024 MD. EMAMUDDIN S/O LATE HANIF, R/O HIJUGURI RABINDRA NAGAR, P.O.-HIJUGURI, P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS SMTI. MADHU DEVI BASOTIS W/O LATE CHANDRA PRAKASH BASOTIS, R/O CHINA PATTY, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K SARMA, MR S.K. KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 03.01.2025 Heard Mr. M.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the Order dated 07.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 18/2017. 3. It is to be noted here that vide Order dated 07.05.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tinsukia has closed the cross-examination of P.W.2 and Page No.# 2/3 P.W.3. 4. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, as plaintiff, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 18/2017, before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tinsukia and in the said title suit, he had filed examination-in-chief of himself and two other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3. Mr. Sarma further submits that on 07.05.2024, the petitioner could not remain present before the court, as he left for Bihar, on account of marriage of his daughter and he also could not inform P.W.2 and P.W.3 to remain present in the court. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.05.2024, the learned trial court had dismissed the petition filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for adjournment and also closed the cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Mr. Sarma also submits that the examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are very much essential to establish the case of the petitioner and if a chance is not given for cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced and he would not be able to establish his case. Therefore, Mr. Sarma submits that at-least one chance may be given to him to produce P.W.2 and P.W.3 and to cross-examine them. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 07.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 18/2017. 6. It appears that the learned trial court had refused to grant further time to the petitioner to produce P.W.2 and P.W.3 for their cross-examination, as sufficient opportunities were already afforded to him, but, the petitioner has failed to avail the same. It also appears that last chance was afforded to the petitioner to produce P.W.2 and P.W.3 and to cross-examine them and despite getting last opportunity, the petitioner had failed to produce P.W.2 and P.W.3 and to cross- Page No.# 3/3 examine them. On such count, the impugned Order dated 07.05.2024, appears to be justified and reasonable. 7. However, in view of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the fact that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are vital witnesses and their cross- examination is necessary for establishing the case by the petitioner, this court is inclined to allow this petition, however, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- and the same shall be deposited before the learned trial court on the next date. In the event of depositing of cost, the learned trial court shall allow the petitioner to produce P.W.2 and P.W.3 for their cross-examination. Further, in the event of failing to avail the said opportunity by the petitioner, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to close the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and thereafter, to proceed to the next stage of trial. 8. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of, at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant