Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010237542023 2026:GAU-AS:7912 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/148/2017 KOSER ALI and 3 ORS. SON OF LATE AHAMMAD ALI 2: KASHEM ALI SON OF LATE AHAMMAD ALI 3: MONOWARA KHATUN DAUGHTER OF LATE AHAMMAD ALI 4: KOLEMA BEWA WIFE OF LATE AHAMMAD ALI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-FORINGAPARA PO and PS. LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 VERSUS KUDDUS ALI and 15 ORS. SON OF LT. MUZAFFOR ALI RESIDENT OF VILL-FORINGPARA PO and PS. LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 2:MOZIRON KHATUN WIFE OF BAHEJ ALI DAUGHTER OF LATE MUZAFFOR ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHUMBANDHA P.S. BOGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 PIN-783129 3:MOYFUL KHATUN W/O ASIRUDDIN SK D/O-LATE MUZAFFOR ALI R/O-VILL-JOYBHUM P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 4:LALBHANU KHATUN W/O ABDUL MIR D/O LATE MUZAFFOR ALI R/O VILL-DOHMOHNI P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 5:NOSER ALI MANDOL S/O LATE SOLEMAN MONDAL R/O VILL-FORINGAPARA PO and PS LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 6:ROBIAL MONDOL S/O LATE SOLEMAN MONADAL R/O VILL-FORINGAPARA PO and PS LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 7:SANOWAR MONDOL S/O LATE SOLEMAN MONADAL R/O VILL-FORINGAPARA PO and PS LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 8:RAHMAN MONDOL S/O SOLEMAN MONADAL R/O VILL-FORINGAPARA PO and PS LAKHIPUR Page No.# 3/8 DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 9:SOBURA KHATUN W/O LATE SOLEMAN MONADAL R/O VILL-FORINGAPARA PO and PS LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 10:PIYARA KHATUN W/O SOMER ALI D/O LATE SOLEMAN MONDAL R/O BAPURBHITA P.S. BOGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 11:SHAPIA KHATUN W/O BADSHA SK D/O LATE SOLEMAN MONDAL R/O VILL CHAKLAPARA P.S. BOGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 12:JAHEDA KHATUN W/O OMOR AI D/O LATE SOLEMAN MONDAL R/O VILL-BORO BOYALMARI P.S. BOGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 13:ROUSHANARA KHATUN W/O MONOWAR ALI D/O LATE SOLEMAN MONDAL R/O VILL-POITARI P.S. BOGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129 Page No.# 4/8 14:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COLLECTOR OF GOALPARA DISTRICT PS and DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 15:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER GOALPARA and BONGAIGAON DISTRICT GOALPARA PS. and DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM 16:THE ASSTT. SETTLEMENT OFFICER LAKHIPUR CIRCLE P.S. LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR.M ALI Advocate for : MR Z HUSSAIN appearing for KUDDUS ALI and 15 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 05.06.2026 Heard Mr. A. Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 5 to 13. 2. It may be mentioned that three applications, namely for condoning the delay, setting aside abatement, and substitution in respect of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, registered as I.A.(C) No. 1656/2023 (for condoning the delay), I.A.(C) No. 1657/2023 (application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC for substitution), and I.A.(C) No. 1658/2023 (for setting aside abatement in respect of respondent Nos. 2 and 3), are pending. In respect of the death of respondent no.4, I.A.(C) 45/2024 and I.A.(C) 46/2024 are pending. Page No.# 5/8 3. The Court takes cognizance of the fact that by virtue of this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 04.04.2017, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara [now Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara] in T.S. No. 40 of 2015 has been challenged. By the said order, the petition for adjournment filed by the petitioners seeking further time to examine additional plaintiff’s witnesses was rejected and, upon closure of the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner’s side, the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners are seeking right, title, and interest in respect of the suit land as well as recovery of khas possession, if their evidence is not permitted to be recorded, they would suffer irreparable loss and injury. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to 13 has submitted that as per the impugned order dated 04.04.2017, the case was pending for evidence since 06.03.2016 and despite several opportunities, the petitioners had availed adjournments beyond the limit permissible under Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC. 6. On perusal of the materials available on record, the Court has noticed that as per the orders annexed, the impugned order dated 04.04.2017 discloses that as per the case records the case had been pending for PWs since 06.03.2016. The other orders, specifically the order dated 07.01.2017, disclose that PW-1 was cross-examined and discharged and the case was fixed on 01.03.2017. On the said date, while granting adjournment, the learned trial Court recorded that the petitioners/plaintiffs were given last chance to adduce evidence and it was ordered accordingly. However, again on 04.04.2017, a Page No.# 6/8 prayer for adjournment was made and the learned Court rejected the same and the evidence of the plaintiff’s side was closed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a medical certificate dated 25.02.2017 in respect of plaintiff No. 2. As per the plaint, there are as many as four plaintiffs, but in the adjournment petition filed on 04.04.2017, it was submitted that the witness was suffering from illness. Therefore, the petition for adjournment was filed without stating as to who was witness required to be examined, and the said medical prescription dated 25.02.2017, also containing advice dated 07.03.2017, does not disclose that the plaintiff No. 2, i.e., petitioner No. 2 herein, was still under medical advice so as to prevent him from appearing before the Court and adducing evidence on 04.04.2017. 8. Therefore, as there is nothing to controvert the correctness of the order dated 04.04.2017, which records that the petitioner side had taken several adjournments since 06.03.2016, the Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Goalpara, in passing the order dated 04.04.2017. 9. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not sitting as a Court of appeal or revision under Section 115 of the CPC. Therefore, if the jurisdiction is exercised by the learned trial Court and is found to be in accordance with the provisions of Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC, this Court will not substitute its discretion for the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court. 10. As indicated above, the three interlocutory applications, being I.A.(C) Page No.# 7/8 No. 1656/2023, I.A.(C) No. 1657/2023, and I.A.(C) No. 1658/2023 were pending when this order was passed, namely, which were in respect of substitution of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are defendant Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. Moreover, in respect of the death of respondent no.4, I.A.(C) 45/2024 and I.A.(C) 46/2024 are pending. 11. Hence, liberty is granted to the petitioners to move the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara for substitution. In these applications, it has been stated by the petitioners that the death of respondent Nos. 2 (defendant No. 5), respondent no.3 (defendant Nos. 6) and respondent no.4 (defendant no.7) was not known to the applicants till 04.11.2019 when the learned counsel appearing for the respondents informed the Court about their death. In I.A.(C) No. 1656/2017, the petitioners have stated that information regarding the death of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was furnished to the Court only on 04.11.2019, and while collecting information they came to know that respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 5) had died on 07.12.2016 and respondent No. 3 (defendant No. 6) had died on 15.12.2017, and thereafter, they had died before this application was presented. The respondent no.4 (defendant no.7) had died on 15.09.2022, during the pendency of this case. 12. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to grant leave to the petitioners to move the learned trial court with an appropriate application for substitution, and in the event such an application is filed within a month from the date of this order, time spent from 04.11.2019, till one month from the date of this order shall be treated as time spent before this Court bona fide and the petitioner would be entitled to claim benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period as indicated above. Page No.# 8/8 13. To the extent indicated above, this revision is dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to move the learned trial Court for substitution of defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7. 14. The petitioners and the appearing respondents, who are duly represented, are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Goalpara on 15.07.2026 and, by producing a certified copy of this order, await further orders that may be passed by the said learned Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant