Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010006372024 2026:GAU-AS:1904 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/93/2024 HIREN KAKATI AND ANR S/O- LATE KALIRAM KAKATI, R/O- VILL.- GARAL BHATTAPARA, P.S. AZARA, P.O. BHATTAPARA, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM 2: RANJIT KAKATI S/O- LATE KALIRAM KAKATI R/O- VILL.- GARAL BHATTAPARA P.S. AZARA P.O. BHATTAPARA DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSA VERSUS DIPALI DAS W/O- LATE PARESH CHANDRA DAS, R/O- VILL.- GARAL BHATTAPARA, P.S. AZARA, P.O. BHATTAPARA, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B PHUKAN, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N SHARMA, B K SINGHA Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.11.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati, in Probate Title Suit No. 2/2021, arising out of Misc. (Probate) Case No. 44/2018. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023, the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) No. 3, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati (‘trial Court’, for short) had debarred the petitioners from filing further evidence-on- affidavit. 4. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had instituted a proceeding for grating probate of the will, executed by their father Late Kaliram Kakati, as the sole beneficiary and legatee of his will within time, and in the said petition, the respondent/opposite party had filed written statement. Mr. Phukan also submits that in the said proceeding, one of the witnesses Sri Hiren Kakati had filed his evidence-on-affidavit, but the petitioners could not file further evidence-on-affidavit on account of illness of the petitioner No. 1, for which the learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 23.11.2023, had debarred the petitioners from filing further evidence-on-affidavit and posted the case for cross-examination of P.W. Mr. Phukan further submits that unless Page No.# 3/4 the petitioners are allowed to file further evidence, they will suffer serious prejudice and would not be able to establish their case. Under such circumstances, Mr. Phukan has contended that the petitioners may be allowed to file evidence-on-affidavit, and they are ready to pay some amount of cost also. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioners could not assign any reasonable ground for failing to file the evidence-on-affidavit and though some document has been produced in support of illness, the same relates to the petitioner No. 1, who had already filed his evidence-on-affidavit, and under such circumstances, Mr. Sharma submits that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 23.11.2023. 7. It appears that in the impugned order, dated 23.11.2023, the learned trial Court had observed that after filing evidence-on-affidavit on 03.06.2022, the petitioners had been seeking adjournment casually on flimsy grounds, and on that day also, the petitioners had not produced any document in support of the fact that the petitioner No. 1 had been undergoing treatment, and thereafter, the learned trial Court had debarred the petitioners from filing further evidence- on-affidavit and posted the case for cross-examination of P.W. It also appears that further proceeding of Probate Title Suit No. 2/2021 had been stayed by this Court, vide order dated 01.03.2024, and on that day, the case was pending for cross-examination of P.W. 8. While the impugned order dated 23.11.2023, is examined in the light of Page No.# 4/4 the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds that the same suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court. 9. At the same time, it also appears that unless the petitioners are allowed to file the evidence-on-affidavit, they would not be able to establish their case. In that view of the matter, prejudice will be caused to them also. 10. Accordingly, considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are given one opportunity to file their evidence-on-affidavit. Consequently, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited by the petitioners before the learned trial Court before next date, the petitioners are allowed to file their evidence-on-affidavit, and on such evidence-on-affidavit being filed, the learned trial Court shall take the same on record and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 11. Both the parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 17.03.2026. 12. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. 13. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant