Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010113882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1721/2025 DHARANI KUMAR DEB S/O LATE DHIRENDRA KUMAR DEB, RESIDENT OF HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO. 6, PO AND PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788151 VERSUS DOYAMOY DEB S/O LATE DHIRENDRA KUMAR DEB, RESIDENT OF HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO. 6, PO AND PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788151 2:SHANKAR SHEEL S/O LATE HARIPADA SHEEL RESIDENT OF HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO. 6 PO PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788151 3:BIJAY KRISHNA BHATTACHARJEE S/O LATE DHIRENDRA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE RESIDENT OF HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO. 8 PO PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788152 4:PRADIP KUMAR CHAKRABORTY S/O LOKENDRA MOHAN CHAKRABORTY RESIDENT OF HAILAKANDI TOWN WARD NO. 8 Page No.# 2/3 PO PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788152 5:RINA CHAKRABORTY W/O JYOTIRMOY CHAKRABORTY RESIDENT OF ULUBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM 781007 6:MUNICIPAL CHAIRPERSON HAILAKANDI BOARD HAILAKANDI ASSAM PO PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. P S CHAKRABORTY, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 27.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. G. Kakoti, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.1. 2. On perusal of the Office Note dated 15.09.2025, it appears that the notice issued to respondent no. 1 (applicant) was personally served by the process server. Hence, notice upon respondent no. 1/applicant is held to be duly served. 3. As regards the notices issued to respondent nos. 2 and 6, it also appears that they were duly served, and service upon respondent nos. 2 and 6 is accordingly held to be valid and sufficient. Page No.# 3/3 4. However, the notice issued to respondent no. 3 was refused by the son of respondent no. 3 on the ground that there was a discrepancy between the name of respondent no. 3 and the name of the father of respondent no. 3. 5. As regards notice issued to the respondent no. 4, the process server’s report shows that respondent no. 4 has expired. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that, as respondent no. 1 is the applicant in the present case, and since the applicant, being the plaintiff, is the beneficiary of the decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the applicant is the party who stands to suffer the most if the connected Regular Second Appeal is not heard expeditiously. It is further submitted that, in the present Interlocutory Application, the main respondent is respondent no. 1, who is also the appellant in RSA No. 170/2024, and who has failed to appear despite due service of notice. 7. Since, in the connected Regular Second Appeal, the records of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have already been received, there appears to be no difficulty in proceeding with the expeditious hearing of the said appeal. 8. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application for expeditious hearing stands disposed of with a direction that connected RSA No. 170/2024 shall be heard as expeditiously as possible. 9. Let the connected Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 170/2024) be listed on 07.11.2025 in the orders column. JUDGE Comparing Assistant