Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010008112026 2026:GAU-AS:10949 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/24/2026 SHARAFAT ALI KHAN S/O LT. ABDUL AZIZ KHAN, R/O KALJAHR, MOUZA- BETBARI, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF SORHAB ALI, HIS LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY 1.1:MD. RUSTAM ALI (S) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.2:ABDUR RAHIM (S) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.3:RAFIQUL ISLAM (S) R/O KALIJAHR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA Page No.# 2/5 DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.4:RAKIBUL ISLAM (S) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.5:RABIA KHATUN (W) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.6:ROUSHNARA KHATUN (D) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.7:LATIFA KHATUN (D) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.8:SWAHIDA KHATUN (D) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI Page No.# 3/5 P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.9:MABIDA KHATUN (D) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-787327 1.10:JAHIDA KHATUN (D) R/O KALIJHAR MOUZA- BETBARI P.O.- BETBARI P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78732 Advocate for the Petitioner : K U AHMED, E DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S AHMED(R1TO10), T UDDIN(R1TO10),MR. A S AHMED(R1TO10) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 06-08-2026 The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.142/24 arising out of T.A. No.34/23 under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC which was filed with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Barpeta dismissing the T.A.34/23 for non Page No.# 4/5 prosecution. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. K.U Ahmed. Also heard Mr. Tahez Uddin, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents. The case of the petitioner herein is that the T.S. No.176/13 had been disposed of by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) No.2 Barpeta by judgment and decree dated 30.09.2023 whereby the suit was dismissed on merit. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred Title appeal against the said judgment and decree before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Barpeta and the same was registered as T.A.34/23. On 03.11.2023, the said T.A.34/23 was admitted for hearing, the TCR were called for and notice was issued to the respondents and the appellant/petitioner herein was directed to take steps on the respondents within 3 days. Thereafter, on subsequent dates, i.e. 04.01.2024, 04.03.2024, 24.04.2024, 26.06.2024 and 19.08.2024, the counsel for the appellant was present but steps were not taken by the counsel for the appellant. Finally, by impugned order dated 25.10.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div) Barpeta dismissed the T.A. 34/23 for non prosecution. Subsequently, the appellant/petitioner again preferred a Misc(J) Case 142/2024 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Barpeta praying for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 25.10.2024 passed in T.A.34/23 whereby the T.A.34/23 was dismissed due to non prosecution. However, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Barpeta dismissed the said Misc(J) 142/2024 on the ground that the alleged ground of mis-posting of the date in the learned Advocate’s Diary was not found sufficient to explain the non compliance with the Court’s order for taking steps even after granting so many opportunities. The learned Trial Court held that the appellants had failed to show sufficient cause to re-admit the appeal and hence the Misc(J) 142/2024 was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. Page No.# 5/5 This Court has gone through the pleadings and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Upon going through the records and the orders of the learned Trial Court in T.A.34/23, it is seen that the appellant counsel had been present on all the dates, however, he had not taken steps as directed by the Court. This Court is of the view that the T.A.34/23 being a statutory appeal, the Court below ought to have taken a lenient view inasmuch as the party should not be made to suffer because of the lapses of the counsel. The learned counsel for the respondents is present and has not seriously contested the matter. In view of the facts and circumstances, the instant petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Div) Barpeta to continue with the hearing of the title appeal. The case is restored back to file and the matter is remanded back to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div) Barpeta. However, it is made clear that the petitioner/appellant shall take the necessary action to take steps for notice on the respondents within 3(three) weeks from 08.09.2026 failing which the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Div) Barpeta may pass appropriate orders. The petitioner/appellant shall appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div) Barpeta on 08.09.2026 for doing the needful. The petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant