Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010064232025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/111/2025 SUBRATA DAS AND ANR SON OF LATE SUKEN DAS, RESIDENT OF SATSANGA ASHRAM ROAD, SILCHAR TOWN, P.S.- SILCHAR, IN THE DISTRICT OF CACHAR, ASSAM 2: ASHIM DAS RESIDENT OF MAHANAMBRATA ROAD HAILAKANDI ROAD P.O AND P.S.- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSA VERSUS M/S JAIN UDYOG HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED IN AGARTALA, TRIPURA AND ONE OF THE OFFICERS AT KUSHAL COMPLEX, SONAI ROAD, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788006 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS , SRI RAMESH KUMARJAIN, SON OF LATE GAJANAND JAIN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, MS D.CHAKRABARTY Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 04.04.2025 Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 2/3 petitioners have put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 24.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, in Petition No. 865/2025, arising out of Title Suit No. 150/2017. 3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 24.02.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar has rejected the prayer for adjournment of the petitioners to file examination-in-chief of DWs and fixed the suit for argument. 4. Mr. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners had availed some adjournments in adducing evidence of DW1 and DW2. Mr. Chakrabarty further submits that while the matter was fixed on 24.02.2025, and the evidence on affidavit of the DW2 was ready, the DW2 suddenly left for Shillong and on such count, the evidence of DW2 could not be filed. Mr. Chakrabarty also submits that the petitioners are ready to pay cost and therefore, it is contended to grant at-least one chance to adduce the evidence of DW2. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, in Petition No. 865/2025, arising out of Title Suit No. 150/2017. 6. It appears that from 24.10.2024, the petitioners herein had been taking time for the evidence of DW2. Further, it appears from the Annexure Nos. 3 – 7 that as many as four dates were given to them to file the evidence of DW2. But, they had failed to avail the same. It also appears that the case is pending since the year 2017. And since the petitioners had failed to avail the four opportunities granted by the learned trial court to adduce the evidence of DW2, the learned trail Page No.# 3/3 court by exercising its discretionary power had refused to allow the petition filed by the petitioners on 24.02.2025, and the same appears to be justified and reasonable and the petitioners could not show any illegality or arbitrariness in the same. 7. Thus, there appears to be no ground for interfering with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant