Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010279912024 2025:GAU-AS:253 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/1/2025 SMT. MONIKA BORA AND 2 ORS W/O LATE MUNIN KR. BORA, A R/O NIZARA HEIGHTS, FLAT NO. 4D, 4TH FLOOR, NIZARAPAR, CHANDMARI, P.S.-CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI-781003, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: SMT. MANIKARNIKA BORA D/O LATE MUNIN KR. BORA A R/O NIZARA HEIGHTS FLAT NO. 4D 4TH FLOOR NIZARAPAR CHANDMARI P.S.-CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3: SMT. PRABALIKA BORAH D/O LATE MUNIN KR. BORA A R/O NIZARA HEIGHTS FLAT NO. 4D 4TH FLOOR NIZARAPAR CHANDMARI P.S.-CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS JYOTI PRASAD MECH S/O LATE J.C. MECH, A R/O K.C. GOGOI PATH, KADAMONI, PIN-786001, P.S.- DIBRUGARH, DIST-DIBRUGARH. P/R/A NIZARA HEIGHTS, FLAT NO. 4B, Page No.# 2/4 4TH FLOOR, NIZARAPAR, CHANDMARI, P.S.-CHANDMARI, GUWAHATI- 781003, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K D CHOUDHURY, MS. L DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 08.01.2025 Heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Section 115, read with Section 151 of CPC, the petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Kamrup(M), in Title Suit No. 189/2021. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 28.11.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Kamrup(M) (‘trial Court’, for short) had dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as plaintiffs, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 189/2021, before the learned trial Court for a decree of ejectment of the defendant/respondent herein and for recovery of arrear and current rent. Thereafter, on 30.07.2024, 03.09.2024, 24.10.2024 and 28.11.2024, the petitioner No. 1 could not remain present in the Court, but she was represented by her counsel and that the case was pending for filing objection to the petition filed by the defendant/respondent herein for waving the cost of Rs. 5,000/-, Page No.# 3/4 imposed by the learned trial Court for failing to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs. But, vide impugned order dated 28.11.2024, the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit although the petitioner No. 1, by enclosing a medical document, filed a petition for failing to file objection to the petition filed by the respondent herein for waiving the cost. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the learned trial Court could have allowed the petition instead of dismissing the suit, and that the petitioner No. 1 had enclosed a medical certificate along with the petition to substantiate her claim that she was undergoing treatment at Hyderabad for carcinoma and despite that, the learned trial Court had recorded in its order that the plaintiff could not produce any document for undergoing treatment at Hyderabad , and that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, Mr. Choudhury has contended to set it aside. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 28.11.2024. 6. It appears that on 28.11.2024, the petitioners herein were not present before the trial Court, but their counsel had filed a petition, being petition No. 1613/2024, praying for another date for filing objection to the petition No. 255/2024, filed by the respondent for waiving the cost imposed upon him. In the said petition, it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is undergoing treatment for carcinoma in Hyderabad and in support of the said contention, one medical certificate was also enclosed with the petition. But, the learned trial Court, while rejecting the petition No. 1613/2024, had also dismissed the suit observing that no document was furnished to substantiate the plea of the petitioner No. 1 that she has been undergoing treatment at Hyderabad for carcinoma. Since the petitioner had enclosed a medical certificate along with petition No. 1613/2024, Page No.# 4/4 and perusal of the said certificate indicates that the same was issued by Dr. Vishal Toka of Hyderabad on 02.10.2024, on such count, the dismissal of the petition and also the dismissal of the suit of the petitioners, appears to be arbitrary and illegal and the same fails to withstand the legal scrutiny and accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.11.2024, stands set aside and quashed. 7. The learned trial Court is directed to restore the case to file and thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on or before 24.01.2025. 8. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant