Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010037652026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/68/2026 KUTUB UDDIN LASKAR SON OF LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILL. AND P.O. DHONIPUR, P.S. SONAI, PIN-788120, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS MUKTARUN NESSA LASKAR AND 3 ORS. WIFE OF FAKAR UDDIN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILL. AND P.O. DHONIPUR, P.S. SONAI, PIN-788120, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM 2:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR PIN-788001 3:ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER SONAI CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S. SONAI DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 4:BIRBAL CHAUHAN ASI SONAI POLICE STATION P.O. SONAI PIN-788119 DIST- CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA, J P BAISHYA,MR. JITU SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 06.04.2026 Heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 57/2015. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar (‘trial Court’, for short) has dismissed the petition No. 1215/07, filed by the petitioner for granting adjournment and fixing another date for cross-examination of P.W.s. 4. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated 11.03.2026, the petitioner herein has filed one additional affidavit bringing on record the orders of the learned trial Court to show the adjournments, which the petitioner herein had availed, and the same is enclosed with the additional affidavit as Annexure-8. Mr. Purkayastha also submits that vide impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the learned trial Court had rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff’s side took adjournment on several occasions earlier and thereafter, dismissed the same. Mr. Purkayastha further submits that the petitioner, in petition No. 1215/07, has mentioned the reason that due to illness, he could not remain present in the Court and as it was a sudden illness, no medical documents could be enclosed with the said petition, and that when sufficient ground is assigned for taking Page No.# 3/6 adjournment, the Court may grant the same. 4.1. In support of his submission Mr. Purkayastha has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2011) 9 SCC 678, and also referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Km. Chandra Govindji, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532. Under such circumstances, Mr. Purkayastha has contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order, which, according to him, is arbitrary and illegal. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the impugned order dated 27.11.2025. Also gone through the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, by which the petitioner has brought on record the orders of the learned trial Court w.e.f. 06.04.2023 to 01.06.2024, as Annexure-8 in the said additional affidavit. 6. The impugned order dated 27.11.2025, is extracted herein below in order to deal with the issue involved in this petition with greater precision: “Order Date: 27.11.2025 Defendant side is represented. Today is the date fixed for Cross of PWs. Plaintiff has filed a petition vide no. 1215/07 sought for an adjournment on the ground as mentioned in the petition. Perusal of the case record reveals that the plaintiff side took adjournments on several occasions earlier. Page No.# 4/6 Hence, the prayer so made in the petition no. 1215/07 stands rejected. In view of the above, I find it proper that the plaintiff side is unnecessary lingering the process of this instant suit. As such, the PW evidence is closed today as it is an old pending case. Fix- 17.01.2026 for evidence of DWs. Sd/- Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 2 Cachar, Silchar” 7. A cursory perusal of the above order reveals that the learned trial Court has rejected the petition No. 1215/07, on the ground that the petition/plaintiff’s side took adjournments on several occasions earlier and the said stand of the learned trial Court is fortified from Annexure-8 i.e. orders w.e.f. 06.04.2023 to 01.06.2024, and the same indicates that on five occasions, the petitioner herein had availed adjournments. 8. Though, under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, especially under the proviso to sub- rule (1), the Court may grant three adjournments, but in the instant case, the petitioner has already availed five adjournments w.e.f. 06.04.2023 to 01.06.2024. However, despite direction of this Court, the petitioner has not placed on record the actual numbers of adjournment, which he had availed till 27.11.2025, after 01.06.2024, for the reason best known to him. This goes to show that he has not approached this Court with clean hands. 9. There is no doubt about the proposition that adjournment can be granted on sufficient cause being shown. Mr. Purkayastha has rightly pointed this out at Page No.# 5/6 the time of hearing. There appears to be substance in his submission and the decisions referred by him, i.e. M/s Shiv Cotex (supra) and also Km. Chandra Govindji (supra) have also strengthened his submission. 10. But, in the instant case, though in the petition it is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff could not remain present on account of illness, yet no medical document has been enclosed with the petition. And to a query of this Court, Mr. Purkayastha submits that no medical document is enclosed with the present petition also to substantiate the plea taken in the petition No. 1215/07, as it was a sudden illness. Even for the sake of argument if it is accepted that on account of sudden illness the medical document could not be enclosed with the petition, yet there appears to be no reason as to why the same could not be enclosed with the present petition even to lend credence to the plea of illness. In absence of any supporting document, the contention left this Court unimpressed. 11. Thus, from the contention being made in the petition and also from the submission of Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds no sufficient cause, as contemplated under sub-rule (1) to Rule 1 of Order 17 CPC for granting further adjournment. 12. A three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, has held that the courts may grant adjournments for sufficient cause with reasons recorded. But, not more than three adjournments, during hearing (proviso to Order XVII Rule 1). Only in extreme and exceptional circumstances, adjournments beyond three can be granted, not in a routine manner. 13. In the instant case, no extreme and exceptional circumstances could be Page No.# 6/6 demonstrated by the petitioner. It is to be noted here that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu (supra) is a decision of three-Judge bench. 14. Thus, having examined the impugned order, in the light of the facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of the proposition, so laid down by a three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu (supra), this Court finds that the same suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this court. 15. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed, however, with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as the approach of the petitioner appears to be abuse of the process of the Court. The cost shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Cachar, Silchar, before the next date of hearing. 16. In terms of above this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant