Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010287792025 2026:GAU-AS:298 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/545/2025 DHIRESWAR BORAH AND ANR SON OF LATE DAYARAM BORAH AND LATE AITA BORAH, RESIDENT OF TOKORCHUK BALIGAON, P.O.- KOKILAMUKH, P.S.- JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM 2: RAJU BORAH @ RANJIT BORA SON OF LATE DAYARAM BORAH AND LATE AITA BORAH RESIDENT OF TOKORCHUK BALIGAON P.O.- KOKILAMUKH P.S.- JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSA VERSUS PRODIP BORAH AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE DAYARAM BORAH AND LATE AITA BORAH, RESIDENT OF TOKORCHUK BALIGAON, P.O.- KOKILAMUKH, P.S.- JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM 2:DIPAK BORAH SON OF PRODIP BORAH RESIDENT OF TOKORCHUK BALIGAON P.O.- KOKILAMUKH P.S.- JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM 3:RIJU BORAH SON OF PRODIP BORAH RESIDENT OF TOKORCHUK BALIGAON P.O.- KOKILAMUKH P.S.- JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT Page No.# 2/4 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B BARUAH, I L NGAMLAI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 08-01-2026 Heard Mr. B. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Jorhat in T.S. No. 71/2025 rejecting the prayer of the defendants for filing Written Statement in the suit and fix the case for ex parte against the defendants. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Baruah, learned counsel that the present petitioner 1 and the respondent No.1 are the brothers and they have the right, title and interest over the suit property. However, the respondent No.1 filed a suit being T.S. No. 71/2025 seeking right, title and interest over the suit property, though the suit property jointly belong to the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1, being the brothers. 4. After receipt of the notice/summon, the engaged counsel for the petitioners appeared on their behalf and filed an application seeking time for filing Written Statement and vide order dated 21.08.2025 the prayer was allowed with an observation that the summons were duly served on the defendants/petitioners on 11.08.2025. 5. However, on the next two consecutive dates, the defendants/petitioners remained unrepresented and the Presiding Officer was also on leave on those two Page No.# 3/4 consecutive dates. However, the petitioners were not aware about the absence of their engaged counsel on those two consecutive dates as it was not informed to them. However, subsequently, they come to know that their engaged counsel also could not appear on those two consecutive dates i.e., on 22.10.2025 and 06.11.2025 due to his illness. During that period the petitioner No.1, who is 85 years old, had developed cataract in both his eyes and he was not in a position to put his signature in any documents. He had gone for his cataract surgery on 27.11.2025. 6. However, coming to know about the order of injunction, the petitioner No.2 applied for the certified copy and the certified copy of the order of injunction was received only on 07.11.2025. But after the surgery of the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.2 had applied for the certified copy of the order on 12.11.2025, passed in T.S. No. 71/2025 and then only they have come to know about the ex parte order passed against them. Further, he submitted that they have no knowledge regarding the absence of their engaged counsel, who also submitted an application on 10.11.2025 without mentioning the medical ground of illness of the petitioner, which was subsequently rejected by the learned Trial Court with an observation that the petition was filed after 91 days after service of summon and accordingly, it is opined that the statutory period of filing the Written Statement is already over and hence, the ex parte order is passed against the present defendants. 7. Coming to know about the same and also on the advice of the petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.2 had immediately applied for a certified copy on 12.11.2025 and immediately after the receiving the certified copy, the present petition has been filed praying for setting aside and quashing the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Jorhat in T.S. No. 71/2025 whereby the case was fixed for ex parte hearing. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Boruah, learned counsel that if the petitioners are not allowed to file their Written Statement to bring their case, who also possesses Page No.# 4/4 the right, title and interest over the suit property, will cause hardship and irreparable loss to the petitioners and accordingly submitted that the order dated 10.11.2025, may be set aside and quash giving one chance to the present petitioners to file their Written Statement in T.S. No. 71/2025. 9. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also considering the grounds mentioned in the petition, vis-à-vis considering the medical ground of the petitioner No.1 and also for the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that one opportunity may be given to the petitioners to file their Written Statement before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Jorhat in T.S. No. 71/2025. 10. In view of the above, the order dated 10.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Jorhat in T.S. No. 71/2025 is hereby set aside and quashed directing the present petitioners to file their Written Statement on or before the next date of listing without any further delay. 11. With the above observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant