Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010040152026 2026:GAU-AS:3573 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/29/2026 ANIS UZ ZAMAN @ ANISAR ZAMAN S/O LT. RASID UZ-ZAMAN, R/O VILL AND P.O- BEJKUCHI, P.S AND DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781378 VERSUS RANTU KALITA AND 16 ORS. SON OF LT. UMA KALITA, R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI, P.O.- BEJKUCHI, P.S.- NALBARI, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781378 2:GOPAL KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 3:KANDARPA KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 4:DEBIT KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI Page No.# 2/7 P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 5:MOHAN KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 6:SANJIB KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 7:KAILASH KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 8:AMAL KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 9:NIRANJAN KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM Page No.# 3/7 PIN-781378 10:JITEN KALITA SON OF LT. UMA KALITA R/O VILL- BEJKUCHI P.O.- BEJKUCHI P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781378 11:PRATIBHA KALITA W/O LT. BIREN KALITA R/O VILL- KHARJARA P.O.- BALIKARIA P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781341 12:NABAJYOTI KALITA S/O LT. BIREN KALITA R/O VILL- KHARJARA P.O.- BALIKARIA P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781341 13:NILAMANI KALITA S/O LT. BIREN KALITA R/O VILL- KHARJARA P.O.- BALIKARIA P.S.- NALBARI DIST- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781341 14:PARESH KR. DEKA S/O LT. KEDAR KUMAR DEKA R/O VILL AND P.O- BEJKUCHI P.S AND DIST- NALBARI ASSAM. PIN-781378 15:PRANAB KR DEKA S/O LT. KEDAR KUMAR DEKA R/O VILL AND P.O- BEJKUCHI P.S AND DIST- NALBARI Page No.# 4/7 ASSAM. PIN-781378 16:MAKHUB ALI S/O NURUDDIN SEIKH R/O VILL- BIHDIA P.O.-KARIA P.S.- NALBARI DISTRICT-NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781339 17:SARIF ALI S/O TAKEN ALI R/O VILL- BIHDIA P.O.-KARIA P.S.- NALBARI DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN-78133 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M AHMED, MD A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.03.2026 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order, dated 15.12.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Nalbari (hereinafter, Trial Court), in Title Suit No. 89/2012. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 15.12.2015, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the Petition No. 1112/2025, filed by the Page No.# 5/7 petitioner, for issuing summon to the Circle Officer, Lat Mandal and also, to allow him to adduce evidence of two sellers, on behalf of the defendant. 4. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the defendant No. 1 has been bedridden due to his illness for about 3 years and his cross-examination was also conducted through commission and after the evidence being closed, the petitioner has found that the official witnesses, such as the Circle Officer and the Lat Mandal, who are the witnesses; are required to be examined and two other sellers of the disputed land, out of the three sellers; are alive and they are also required to be examined as witnesses and as such, the petitioner has filed the Petition No. 1112/2025, for calling the aforementioned witnesses. But, the learned Trial Court has arbitrarily dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause, which prevented him from adducing their evidence at the stage of DW evidence, despite assigning sufficient cause for delay; and that unless the petitioner is allowed to examine the aforementioned witnesses, he will suffer serious prejudice and under such circumstances, it is contended to allow this petition. 5. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 15.12.2015. 6. It appears that the case is presently pending at the stage of argument and it also appears that the evidence for PW was closed on 14.02.2023 and the next date, i.e., 10.04.2024, was fixed for evidence of DW and on 06.01.2025, DW was also closed and the case was fixed on 04.02.2025, for argument. But, thereafter, the petitioner herein has sought for adjournment Page No.# 6/7 and only on 08.07.2025, the petitioner has preferred the Petition no. 1112/2025, for examination of the said witnesses. 7. It also appears that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition by observing that the petitioner has failed to assign sufficient cause for filing the petition at a belated stage and he has also not mentioned as to why the official witnesses are necessary; in spite of getting ample opportunity to examine the two sellers and since the petitioner has failed to show sufficient case, which prevented him from adducing their evidence at the stage of DW, the petition was rejected. 8. It is worth mentioning here in this context that a question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what explanation the petitioner has put forward in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of illness of the petitioner, said petition could not be filed in time. But, to a further pointed query of this Court, as to from which date to which date the petitioner was suffering from illness, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not answer the same and no such explanation was given in the petition, except mentioning that the petitioner was bedridden for 3 years. 9. Indisputably, after giving sufficient opportunity to both the sides the learned trial court has closed the evidence. Thereafter, the case was posted for argument. And while the suit was pending for argument the petitioner suddenly awake from slumber and filed the petition that too without plausible reason. Indisputably, the suit was filed in the year 2012. Meanwhile more than 14 years elapsed. The learned Trial Court has taken note of the same and dismissed the petition. Page No.# 7/7 10. And having tested the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the same suffers from no infirmity or irregularity requiring any interference of this court. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant