Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010080272026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/161/2026 SWAPAN SUTRADHAR S/O LATE REBATI MOHAN SUTRADHAR, R/O BARPETA ROAD TOWN, WARD NO.10, MOUZA - GOBARDHANA, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT - BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315 VERSUS TAPAN DEY S/O LATE RADHESHYAM DEY, R/O BARPETA ROAD, WARD NO. 1, SUKANTAPALLI, MOUZA - GOBARDHANA, P.S.- BARPETA ROAD, DISTRICT - BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DILIP DEY, Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 18.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. D. Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Swapan Sutradhar, impugning the order Page No.# 2/4 dated 28-.01.2026, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta, in Title Suit No. 48/2020 whereby the evidence adduced by the witnesses for the defendant (present petitioner) were expunged due to failure on the part of the witnesses namely, DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 to present themselves for the purpose of cross-examination. 3. Mr. D. Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that there has been latches and negligence on the part of the petitioner’s witnesses not presenting themselves for the purpose of cross- examination. However, he submits that if the evidence adduced by the DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 are expunged, the version of the defendant's side may not be considered by the Trial Court and the suit will be decided entirely on the basis of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff's witnesses, which he submits that would be prejudicial to the interest of the present petitioner. 4. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to produce all his witnesses on the next date fixed i.e., on 03.07.2026, as the matter is fixed for argument. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the materials available on record. 6. It appears that the Trial Court has on an earlier instance imposed costs for failure on the part of the defendant (present petitioner) to present his witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. Though the said cost of Rs. 2000/- has been paid, however, in spite of that, on the fixed Page No.# 3/4 date the petitioner failed to present his witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. 7. Though, there appears to be no infirmity or error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, however, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner is ready to present his witnesses before the Trial Court for the purpose of cross-examination on the next date fixed, the cause of the justice would be served if the Trial Court has the version of both the sides before it reaches a conclusion in the pending trial. As such, the impugned order is interfered with and the observation of the Trial Court regarding expunction of the evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 is concerned, the same is set aside. 8. On the next date fixed, i.e., 03.07.2026, the Trial Court shall give a date for presentation of defendant's witnesses, namely, DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 for cross-examination and on that day the present petitioner shall produce all his witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination. This is subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent i.e., plaintiff's side. The payment of cost shall be condition precedent for allowing the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses. 9. This court is of the considered opinion that the interest of the plaintiff is taken care of by this Court by imposing cost on the present petitioner and making same as conditioned precedent for allowing the cross- examination of the defendant's witnesses. Hence, notice to the respondents in this Civil Revision Petition (IO) is waived. Page No.# 4/4 10. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition (IO) is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant