Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010222582025 2025:GAU-AS:15005 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/431/2025 JITU GOSWAMI SON OF JUGAL PRASAD GOSWAMI, HOUSE NO. 20, BYE LANE NO. 1, ADARSHPUR, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, PIN-781019. VERSUS NITUMONI SAIKIA AND 6 ORS. EDITOR, PRATIDIN TIME, PRATIDIN TIME BUILDING, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, OPPOSITE DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, AIDC, GUWAHATI- 781024, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM. 2:JAYANTA BARUAH PROPRIETOR PRATIDIN TIME PRATIDIN TIME BUILDING R.G. BARUAH ROAD OPPOSITE DOORDARSHAN KENDRA AIDC GUWAHATI- 781024 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. 3:SMTI SMITAKSHI BARUAH DIRECTOR PRATIDIN TIME PRATIDIN TIME BUILDING R.G. BARUAH ROAD OPPOSITE DOORDARSHAN KENDRA AIDC GUWAHATI- 781024 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM. 4:SAJADUL RANA REPORTER PRATIDIN TIME PRATIDIN TIME BUILDING R.G. BARUAH ROAD OPPOSITE DOORDARSHAN KENDRA AIDC GUWAHATI- 781024 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. 5:BUREAU CHIEF PRATIDIN TIME PRATIDIN TIME BUILDING R.G. BARUAH ROAD OPPOSITE DOORDARSHAN KENDRA AIDC GUWAHATI- 781024 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. 6:THE ANCHOR NO 1 (NAME NOT KNOWN) PRATIDIN TIME PRATIDIN TIME BUILDING R.G. BARUAH ROAD OPPOSITE DOORDARSHAN KENDRA AIDC GUWAHATI- 781024 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM. 7:THE ANCHOR NO 2 (NAME NOT KNOWN) PRATIDIN TIME PRATIDIN TIME BUILDING R.G. BARUAH ROAD OPPOSITE DOORDARSHAN KENDRA AIDC GUWAHATI- 781024 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SAIKIA, MS. PADMINI BARUA,MS. RUKMINI BARUA,MR. R BORPUJARI Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 3/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 07.11.2025 1. Heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 30.11.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati Title Suit No.177/2015. 3. On 30.11.2024, the plaintiff and the defendant were represented by their respective counsels but, PW-1 was absent on that day. He was to be cross-examined on that day. Since he was absent on that day, his evidence on affidavit was expunged. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. On a plain reading of the order dated 30.11.2024, it appears that the order was passed mechanically, without applying judicial mind, 6. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.11.2024 is set aside. 7. The Trial Court is directed to give adequate opportunity to the PW-1 to be cross- examined by the defendants. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant