Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010020512025 2025:GAU-AS:1549 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/39/2025 BIKRAM SANYAL AND ANR SON OF LATE MAHESWAR SANYAL, R/O PANCHARATNA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR B2, BLOCK A, LOKHRA ROAD, LUTUMA, GUWAHATI-18, PO BINOVA NAGR, PS FATASIL AMBARI, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM 2: SMTI TATAN SARKAR S/O LATE RANJIT SARKAR W/O SUJIT NATH R/O BARPETA ROAD TOWN WARD NO. 1 P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA ROAD TOWN WARD NO. 1 P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA ROAD DIST-BARPETA-781315 ASSA VERSUS SMTI BHANUMATI DAS AND 4 ORS. W/O LATE BHABENDRA NATH DAS, RESIDENT OF BARPETA ROAD TOWN, WARD NO. 8, CHANDRAPUR, PO AND PS- BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT- BARPETA-781301, ASSAM 2:SAMIRAN DAS S/O NOT KNOWN R/O SORBHOG NEAR DIPALI GAS P.O. AND P.S.- SORBHOG DIST-BARPETA-781317 ASSAM 3:BIMAL SAHA (LICI AGENT) S/O NOT KNOWN Page No.# 2/4 R/O HOWLY TOWN OPPOSITE HOWLY P.O. WARD NO. 1 P.O. AND P.S.-HOWLY DIST-BARPETA-781316 ASSAM 4:BOLORAM DAS (BOLO) S/O NOT KNOWN R/O SORBHOG VERAGAON (BERAGAON) P.O. AND P.S.-SORBHOG DIST-BARPETA-781317 ASSAM 5:SUJIT NATH S/O LATE SUNIL CHANDRA NATH R/O BARPETA ROAD TOWN WARD NO. 1 P.O. AND P.S.-BARPETA ROAD DIST-BARPETA-781315 ASSA Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. M Dutta Advocate for the respondent(s): X X B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 14.02.2025 Heard Mr. M Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 3/4 petitioners. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 12.07.2024 whereby the learned Civil Judge, Baksa, Assam in Title Suit No.9/2022 did not grant any further chance to the plaintiff to adduce other witnesses. 3. The question arises as to whether this Court in the present facts ought to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is seen that on 05.02.2024 both the parties submitted their list of witnesses before the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 9/2022 and the Court fixed 14.03.2024 for filing of evidence of the plaintiff witnesses. The plaintiff sought for adjournments on 14.03.2024, 25.04.2024, 05.06.2024 for submission of evidence on affidavit. In the order dated 05.06.2024, the learned Trial Court granted a further time till 12.07.2024 for the plaintiff to submit the evidence on affidavit of the witnesses as a last chance. Inspite of that, the plaintiff did not submit the evidence on affidavit of all the witnesses, but only submitted the evidence on affidavit of PW4 and further sought for time to adduce evidence on affidavit of further witnesses. The learned Trial Court by the order dated 12.07.2024, rejected the said prayer, taking into account that there has been three adjournments granted earlier for submission of the evidence on affidavit and inspite of that, the plaintiff did not submit the evidence on affidavit of the witnesses except PW-4. The record reveals that the plaintiff thereupon remained silent and continued with the said suit proceedings. Further to that, it is revealed from the records that on 08.08.2024, 13.09.2024, 24.10.2024 and Page No.# 4/4 20.11.2024, the plaintiff continued to take time for the purpose of cross examination of PW-4. Thereupon, it has been submitted by Mr. M Dutta learned counsel for the petitioner that the cross examination of the PW-4 was completed on 04.02.2025 and the Court had fixed 11.03.2025 for examination of the official witnesses. 4. This Court had duly perused the provisions of Order XVII Rule 1. From a perusal thereof, it is seen that there shall be no adjournment granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suits. Hearing of the suits has been mentioned in Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code). In the instant case, it would be seen that not to speak of three adjournments, the plaintiff had taken nine adjournments for the purpose of the completion of its evidence. It is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court was much more lenient than what has been postulated in the proviso to Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code. 5. Considering the above, this Court finds no merit in the instant revision petition, for which, the instant petition stands dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant