Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010120532026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/255/2026 MD. ABDUS SAMAD S/O LATE HAJI HAIZUDDIN, VILLAGE- WARD NO. 2, HOSPITAL ROAD, KHARUPETIA, MOUZA- KHARUPETIA, P.O. AND P.S.- KHARUPETIA, DISTRICT- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784115 VERSUS DR. ABDUL JALIL AHMED AND ANR S/O LATE ABDUL GAFUR, VILLAGE- HOSPITAL COLONY, WARD NO. 2, KHARUPETIA, P.O. AND P.S.- KHARUPETIA, DISTRICT- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784115 2:SUMERMAL BARMUCHA S/O LATE GURMUKH RAI BARMECHA VILLAGE- KHARUPETIA TOWN MOUZA- KHARUPETIA P.O. AND P.S.- KHARUPETIA DISTRICT- DARRANG. PIN-784115 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR C GOSWAMI, MS. S KRISHNOTROYEE,B R SAH Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 19.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. C. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Md. Abdus Samad, impugning the order dated 23.04.2026 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 2), Darrang Mangaldai, in the Title Suit No. 57/2018, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (d) (3) read with Section 30 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed by the Trial Court without affording any opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner. 3. Mr. C. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the interim order, the Trial Court has observed that despite granting multiple opportunities, the opposite parties have failed to advance arguments and have already availed more than three adjournments. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is perverse finding by the Trial Court, if fact, it was for the first time, on 23.04.2026 the petitioner had prayed for adjournment for hearing of Petition No. 534/2025 [under Order of 7 Rule 14 (3)] read with Section 30/151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908]. He submits that the Petition No. 534/2025 filed by the plaintiff was put up before the Trial Court on 18.06.2025 and Page No.# 3/4 next date was fixed on 15.07.2025 for filing written objection and objection hearing. 5. He further submits that accordingly, the petitioner filed his written objection on 14.10.2025 and next date was fixed for 29.11.2025 for objection hearing. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 29.11.2025, it was the plaintiff, who filed a petition bearing Petition No.1206 seeking an adjournment, which was granted by the Trial Court and the next date was fixed on 16.12.2025. 7. He further submits that on 16.12.2025, the plaintiff again filed an adjournment petition, which was again granted by the Trial Court fixing 17.01.2026 for hearing. On 17.01.2026 the Presiding Officer was on leave and, as such, the matter was fixed on 23.02.2026. 8. On the next date, i.e., on 23.02.2026, though, both the parties were represented, the Trial Court fixed 23.04.2026 for hearing of the said petition and on 23.04.2026, the present petitioner filed an adjournment petition for the first time, which was numbered as Petition No. 85, however, the Trial Court observed erroneously that it was the present petitioner, who failed to advance arguments in spite of availing adjournments for more than three times. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been greatly prejudiced in denying by the Trial Court the opportunity of being heard before deciding the Petition No. 534/2025 filed by the plaintiff. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 11. Since the copies of orders passed by the Trial Court in the Title Suit No. 57/2018 reveals that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is true. It appears that before passing of the impugned order on two earlier occasions adjournment were granted by the Trial Court for hearing on Petition No. 534/2025 and on both occasions, the adjournment prayer was made by the plaintiff's side only, i.e. on 29.11.2025 and 16.12.2025. Hence, the observations made by the Trial Court in the impugned order that the opposite parties have availed more than three adjournments and have failed to advance their argument appears to be erroneous and, as such, the impugned order is set aside with an observation with a direction to the Trial Court to give an opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner and decide the Petition No. 534/2025 afresh after hearing both the sides. 12. Under facts and circumstances of this case, this revision petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself without issuing notice to the other sides with above observation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant