Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010131512026 2026:GAU-AS:9357 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/293/2026 TULSI GOHAIN S/O LATE HUNESWAR GOHAIN, R/O KUMARANICHINGA, P.O.- RAJABHETA, P.S.- BORBORUAH, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS SMTI. MUNMUN GOHAIN AND ANR W/O LATE DILIP GOHAIN, R/O VILL.- KUMARANICHIGA, P.O.- RAJABHETA, P.S.- BORBORUAH, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. 2:BHARAT GOHAIN S/O LATE DILIP GOHAIN R/O VILL.- KUMARANICHIGA P.O.- RAJABHETA P.S.- BORBORUAH DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R SENSUA, MR A.J.SARMA,G KAUSHIK,MR. K GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 26.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the main defendant in Title Suit No.10/2023, which is pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divison) No.2, Dibrugarh impugning the order dated 03.06.2026, passed by the said Court in the aforesaid case, whereby the prayer Page No.# 2/3 for cross-examination of plaintiff’s witness by the present petitioner was rejected and the next date is fixed on 14.07.2026 for the evidence of the defendant’s witness. 3. Mr. Sensua, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had earlier cross-examined the plaintiff’s witness however, he was allowed to further cross-examine by depositing a cost of Rs.1,000/-. However, as the Title Suit No.10/2023 was earlier pending before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.3, Dibrugarh and was transfer to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Dibrugarh, there was some miscommunication and such the plaintiff’s witness could not be examined on the said date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that there has been a lap on the part of the petitioner in not depositing the cost as was directed by the Trial Court. 5. He further submits that unless the petitioner is allowed to cross- examine the plaintiff’s witness, he would be greatly prejudice and therefore he submits that the petitioner, who is the defendant in the aforesaid suit, be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness for the ends of justice. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court intends to dispose of this matter at the motion stage itself without issuing notice to the respondents. 7. The facts narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as those reveled from the documents which are annexed along with the revision petition indicates that there was some laps on the part of the present petitioner in not cross-examining the plaintiff’s witness on the subsequent fixed by the Page No.# 3/3 Trial Court. 8. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said laps may be condoned by the ends of justice by imposing appropriate cost. 9. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent that it has denied the present petitioner the chance of further cross-examining the plaintiff’s witness. 10. The petitioner is allowed to further cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- in addition to the cost which was earlier imposed by the Trial Court. The said cost shall be paid to the plaintiff by the present petitioner. 11. Payment of the aforesaid costs shall be a condition precedent for permitting the present petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. 12. With above observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant