Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010065122025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/109/2025 JOLI DAS W/O- SRI AJIT KR. DAS, R/O- LONGAI RAILWAY QUARTER, P.O. AMBARKHANA, P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS BIPUL CHANDRA PAUL AND 3 ORS. S/O- LATE BARINDRA KR. PAUL, R/O- VILL. AND P.O. AMBARKHANA, P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM 2:NIRMALENDU PAUL S/O- LATE BARINDRA KR. PAUL R/O- VILL. AND P.O. AMBARKHANA P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY GOVT. ADVOCATE ASSAM 4:THE SUB-REGISTRAR KARIMGANJ P.O. AND DIST KARIMGANJ ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MS. B. HAZARIKA,MD. MEMON AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 27.03.2025 Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.03.2025, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Sribhumi, in T.S. Case No. 18/2014. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 12.03.2025, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 3, Sribhumi (‘trial Court’, for short) had dismissed the petition No. 484/01, filed by the petitioner herein, seeking time to adduce evidence of D.W. 4. Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit Case No. 18/2014 and she contested the aforementioned title suit by filing written statement and she had also examined three witnesses and on account of illness, the petitioner herein could not produce the witness No. 4, namely, Birendra Kumar Das on 07.03.2025 and filed a petition No. 448/14, praying for adjournment of the case and the learned trial Court had allowed the same and fixed the matter on 12.03.2025 for further D.W.s and directed the petitioner to submit evidence-on-affidavit without fail on that day. But, on 12.03.2025, the petitioner herein could not produce the witness on account of illness and filed a petition No. 484/01. However, the learned trial Court had dismissed the same. Ms. Choudhury further submits that the learned trial Court had failed to consider the ground shown in the petition and as such, the impugned order dated 12.03.2025, is illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, it is contended to set it aside and afford an opportunity to the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner to produce the witness before the learned trial Court. 5. Having heard the submission of Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 12.03.2025. 6. For better appreciation of the submission of Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is reproduced herein below: “ ORDER 12.03.2025 Parties are represented. Defendant filed a petition no. 484/01 praying for some time to adduce evidence of DW. Perusal of the case record reveals that defendant has been strictly directed to adduce evidence today itself, but failed to comply the order of the court. Neither did defendant fail to submit any satisfactory explanation regarding to his claim. It is also seen that defendant has taken fresh step on DW Birendra Kumar Das which Court already passed order that fresh step need not be required. Hence, considering the reluctant behaviour of the defendant and on the ground of long pendency of the suit, I deem it fit to reject the petition and to close the evidence of DW. The suit will proceed as per law. Fix 29.03.2025 for argument. Sd/- Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 3 Sribhumi” 7. It is not in dispute that the suit was instituted in the year 2014 and for more than 10 years, it is pending before the learned trial Court. It also appears that on 07.03.2025, while the matter was fixed for evidence of D.W., namely, Birendra Kumar Das, on that day the witness could not be produced before the Page No.# 4/5 learned trial Court, for which petition No. 448/14 was filed and the learned trial Court had allowed the same. It further appears that the learned trial Court thereafter, fixed the matter on 12.03.2025, directing the petitioner to submit evidence-on-affidavit on that day without fail. But, on 12.03.2025, the petitioner had failed to submit the evidence-on-affidavit of D.W. Birendra Kumar Das, instead she filed one petition No. 484/01, praying for some time to adduce evidence. A translated copy of the said petition is available on the record as Annexure-6, page 37 of the petition. Perusal of the same indicates that on account of illness, the defendant witness could not remain present before the learned trial Court. But, no medical document has been enclosed with the petition to support the said averment. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, having seen the conduct and also the ground of long pendency of the suit, dismissed the petition and closed evidence of D.W. 8. During the time of hearing, on a pointed query of this Court to Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any medical document was furnished along with the petition No. 484/01 before the learned trial Court, Ms. Choudhury submits that no medical document was submitted in support of claim of illness of the witness and when asked as to whether any medical is enclosed with the present petition to substantiate the claim of illness of the witness, Ms. Choudhury has answered in negative. 9. Thus, having examined the impugned order in the light of the given facts and circumstances on the record, and in the light of the above submission of Ms. Choudhury, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, dated 12.03.2025, suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court. The case is admittedly pending since the year 2014 and the learned trial Court had rightly taken note of the same. Under such circumstances, I find Page No.# 5/5 this petition devoid of merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant