Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010241822025 2025:GAU-AS:15002 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/450/2025 ANANDA PANDIT SON OF LATE BHABESH PANDIT, R/O KALAHBHANGA, WARD NO.3, BARPETA ROAD, P.O.- BARPETA ROAD, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315 VERSUS SANJAY PANDIT SON OF SANTOSH PANDIT, R/O KALAHBHANGA, WARD NO.3, BARPETA ROAD, P.O.- BARPETA ROAD, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MR. K DAS,P SHARMA,B KALITA,MS P HALDER,MS. R DEVI,MR. P S BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 07.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 19.08.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barpeta in Money Suit Case No.23/2023. 3. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit before the Trial Court. 4. On 19.08.2025, the plaintiff of the suit produced his witnesses for cross- examination by the defendant. At about 1 pm, the counsel for the present petitioner filed an application praying for another date for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses due to illness of the engaged advocate, however, none appeared to move the said petition. 5. The learned court found that though the Vakalatnama filed by the present petitioner contained the names of some advocates, none of appeared on that day. Therefore, the Court below dismissed the application filed by the learned counsel on that day. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although some fault might have been committed by the lawyer, the litigants should not suffer for that reason. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner should be given adequate opportunity to contest the case before the Trial Court. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the materials available before me, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to that effect. 9. Therefore, the impugned order dated 19.08.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta is set aside. 10. The learned Trial Court shall give adequate opportunity to the defendant i.e., the present petitioner to contest the suit by cross-examining of the witnesses of the Page No.# 3/3 plaintiff. 11. With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant