Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010221682025 2025:GAU-AS:16069 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/482/2025 MD RUSTOM ALI AND 5 ORS SON OF LATE HUSSAIN ALI, R/O PAVA DE-RESERVE NC, PS BIHPURIA, MOUZA LALUK, DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2: MD ATIKUL ISLAM S/O LATE INNUS ALI R/O PAVA DE-RESERVE NC PS BIHPURIA MOUZA LALUK DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3: MD ABUL HUSSAIN S/O LATE NEKBAR ALI R/O PAVA DE-RESERVE NC PS BIHPURIA MOUZA LALUK DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4: MD ABDUL RAHMAN S/O OMAR ALI R/O PAVA DE-RESERVE NC PS BIHPURIA MOUZA LALUK DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 5: MD AFAZUDDIN ALI S/O LATE TURAB ALI R/O PAVA DE-RESERVE NC PS BIHPURIA MOUZA LALUK DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM 6: MD HABIBUR RAHMAN S/O LATE MANNAS ALI R/O PAVA DE-RESERVE NC PS BIHPURIA MOUZA LALUK DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSA VERSUS SRI BHABA KANTA DEV GOSWAMI AND 2 ORS. SATRADHIKAR, OLD KAMALABARI SATRA, MAJULI, ASSAM 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NORTH LAKHIMPUR LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:THE REVENUE CIRCLE OFFICER BIHPURIA LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MR. TAPOBRAT CHHETRI,MR. J K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR B N SARMA (R-1), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 26.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ganguli, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of Title Suit No.02/2023, pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. Page No.# 3/3 3. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit below, they engaged a lawyer from Guwahati and the said lawyer sought several adjournments on various grounds. The adjournments were granted subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7,000/-. The Cost of Rs.7,000/- have already been paid but the cost of Rs.5,000/- has yet to be paid. 4. In the meantime, PW-1 and PW-2 have already been cross-examined and discharged. Thereafter, PW-3 and PW-4 were to be cross-examined. However the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for an adjournment and the Trial Court held that the petitioners were taking unnecessary adjournments and prolonging the disposal of the case. 5. Therefore, the hearing of evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 was closed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. 7. This Court is of the opinion that the closure of the hearing of the evidence of PW-3 and 4 was un-reasonable. 8. Therefore, the impugned orders to that effect stand modified accordingly. 9. The PW-3 and 4 shall be cross-examined within next 20 (twenty) days from today. The Trial Court shall fixed the matter accordingly and after closure of cross- examination of PW-3 and 4, the Trial Court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant