Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010092422026 2026:GAU-AS:6756 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/176/2026 KAMAKHYA PRASAD SHAH AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA PRASAD SHAH, P/R/A SARUMOTORIA, SWARAJ NAGAR, BYE LANE-2, HOUSE NO. 13, GUWAHATI, P.S.- DISPUR, PIN-781006, DIST- KAMRUP (M) 2: MOTILAL SHAH S/O LATE RADHA KRISHNA PRASAD SHAH R/O CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786184 3: SMTI SEW KUMARI GUPTA W/O LATE PARSURAM PRASAD GUPTA R/O CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 78618 VERSUS BIJOY KUMAR SEAL AND 2 ORS. S/O LATE HARIPADA SEAL, R/O CHABUA, P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2:SUJOY SEAL S/O LATE HARIPADA SEAL R/O CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 3:BALRAM SEAL S/O LATE HARIPADA SEAL R/O CHABUA P.O. AND P.S.- CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY, R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 15.05.2026 Heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in T.S. No. 53 of 2013, have assailed the order dated 25.02.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dibrugarh, by which the learned trial Court had rejected the petition No. 1605 of 2026 for adjournment and having noticed that the case was initially in the evidence stage since 30.04.2014 and out of five PWs only one PW was cross- examined, the said petition was rejected and the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 was ordered not to be considered for want of cross-examination. The case was fixed on 26.03.2026 for DW i.e. defendant's witnesses. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this is an ejectment suit and that if the said order dated 25.02.2026 is not recalled or set aside, the petitioners, being the landlords seeking eviction of the respondents, would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Page No.# 3/4 4. It is noticed from the impugned order dated 25.02.2026 that since 30.04.2014, the case has been pending for PW evidence, and the learned trial Court has recorded that innumerable adjournments had been taken by the petitioners for producing their witnesses for cross-examination. The Court is of the considered opinion that as three adjournments are permissible under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC, which had already been exhausted by granting more than three adjournments at the stage of PWs with imposition of costs on several occasions, it cannot be said that the order dated 25.02.2026 is arbitrary or perverse on that account. 5. Therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would be slow in interfering with the order by which the cross-examination of PW-2 to PW-5 was closed by order dated 25.02.2026. The delay on the part of the petitioners is evident throughout all the stages of the suit. Though one of the defendants died at the stage of cross- examination of the PWs, about two years’ time was taken by the petitioners to take appropriate steps for service of notice upon the substituted defendants. 6. In this regard, it may be mentioned that, although the defendants, by filing a petition on 04.10.2023, informed the Court about the death of one of the defendants and disclosed the names of the legal representatives by producing the legal heir certificate, the application for substitution was filed long after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a petition for substitution and for setting aside abatement. It appears from the record that there were repeated defaults in taking steps for service of notice upon the substituted defendants. Only after the learned trial Court passed an order on 06.09.2025, directing that if steps were not taken within seven days, the suit Page No.# 4/4 would stand dismissed against the substituted defendants, were the appropriate steps taken. Eventually, by order dated 12.11.2025, the suit was dismissed against defendant No. 1. 7. Coming back to the impugned order, the case was fixed for cross- examination of the PWs on 19.12.2025 and, after several adjournments were taken, the impugned order ultimately came to be passed on 25.02.2026. Hence, if interference is made with the said impugned order dated 25.02.2026, it would render otiose the provisions of Order XVII Rule 1 CPC, which limits adjournments to not more than three at the stage of hearing. 8. Accordingly, the Court does not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. JUDGE Comparing Assistant