Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010237752024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/37/2023 FATIMA KHATUN BARBHUIYA@CHOUDHURY W/O- SAFIQUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA VILL- UJANGRAM P.O- NIZ- JOYNAGAR P.S- SILCHAR SADAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS MD RUKAN UDDIN MAZUMDER AND 3 ORS S/O- LATE SAFIQUE UDDIN MAZUMDER R/O- KANAKPUR PART-II P.O- SILCHAR P.S- SILCHAR SADAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 2:MUST RINA BEGUM MAZUMDER D/O- LATE SAFIQUE UDDIN MAZUMDER R/O- KANAKPUR PART-II PO- SILCHAR P.S-SILCHAR SADAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 3:MD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/O- LATE NUR UDDIN MAZUMDER VILL- SONABARIGHAT PART-I P.O- SONABARIGHAT Page No.# 2/5 P.S- SILCHAR SADAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 4:MD. DALIM HUSSAIN MAZUMDER S/O- LATE NUR UDDIN MAZUMDER VILL- SONABARIGHAT PART-I P.O- SONABARIGHAT P.S- SILCHAR SADAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- ------------ Advocate for : MR. A M S MAZUMDER Advocate for : MR. D CHAKRABARTY (R3 R4) appearing for MD RUKAN UDDIN MAZUMDER AND 3 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 27.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. M. S. Mazumder, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Fatima Khatun Barbhuiya @ Choudhury, impugning the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Cachar, Silchar in Title Suit No. 119/2019, whereby the prayer for adjournment by the present petitioner was denied and the cross examination of PW-1 was closed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 119/2009 adduced the evidence of her son as the PW-1. However, as her son has been involved in a criminal case Page No.# 3/5 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and as the PW-1 had also preferred a Criminal Petition i.e., Criminal Petition No. 763/2022 for quashing of the criminal case pending against him, he could not appear before the Trial Court on the day we fixed for his cross-examination. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had closed the cross-examination of PW-1 mainly on the ground that on an earlier occasion also on the same ground adjournment was sought for. He further submits that the PW-1 is now ready for appearing before the Trial Court to face the cross-examination as he has been enlarged on bail in connection with the criminal case which was pending against him. 5. He further submits that if the PW-1 is not allowed to be cross- examined, the examination-in-chief adduced by PW-1 on affidavit may become redundant and the petitioner may be highly prejudiced because of the same. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the instant application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is herself the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 119/2009. However, instead of adducing her own evidence, she has made her son as PW-1. 7. He further submits that the Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer for adjournment as repeatedly on the same ground adjournments were sought for by the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner would suffer no prejudice as the petitioner herself may adduce evidence in support of her case. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 9. Though apparently no illegality or irregularity appears to be there in the impugned order passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, Page No.# 4/5 however, the circumstances have changed in as much as the PW-1 has been enlarged on bail in the criminal case, which she was facing and, therefore, presently there is no impediment on her appearing before the Trial Court for the cross-examination. 10. However, this Court is of considered opinion that as the examination- in-chief of PW-1 has already been submitted before the Trial Court in form of an affidavit, the ends of justice would be served, if the PW-1 is allowed to be cross- examined by the respondent. 11. Further, it is for the petitioner to select as to by adducing what evidence she would prove her contentions in the Title Suit No. 119/2009. 12. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that if a reasonable cost is imposed, the petitioner may be allowed to present PW-1 for cross- examination before the Trial Court. 13. For reasons stated herein above, this instant Criminal Revision Petition is allowed with a direction to the Trial Court to allow the PW-1 to be cross- examined by the defendant's side in Title Suit No. 119/2009 on 25.11.2025 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 14. The said cost shall be paid to the defendants in Title Suit No. 119/2009. 15. The payment of cost shall be a condition precedent for cross- examination of PW-1 as both the parties are represented by their engaged counsel before this Court. 16. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Munsiff No. 2, Cachar, Silchar in Title Suit No. 119/2009 on 25.11.2025 along with a certified copy of this order and on the said date, the PW-1 shall be cross- examined. Page No.# 5/5 17. No further adjournment shall be granted by the Trial Court for cross- examination of PW-1. 18. This CRP(IO) is, accordingly, disposed of. 19. Consequence to the passing of the aforesaid order, the interim order passed earlier shall be vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant