THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. SOFER ALI & Anr.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DEKA, MR A DAS,MR R HOQUE,MR. A CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

14.10.2025 ORDER Page No.# 2/4

Heard Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2.

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Usob Ali Ahmed, 2. Ramjan Ali and 3. Sainuddin Ahmed impugning the order dated 16.12.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 2), Bilasipara whereby the review application filed by the present petitioners in Misc. (J) Case No. 96/2022 in Title Suit No. 90/2015 was rejected.

By virtue of the review application filed by the petitioners under Order 47 Rule 1, read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the petitioners had prayed before the Trial Court for review of the order dated

04.03.2020. By the said order, passed on 04.03.2020, the Trial Court had rejected the adjournment application filed by the petitioners, as defendants in the said suit and had closed the defendants evidence.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the order, which was reviewed was passed in the year 2020, and the evidence of defendants was closed, the trial could not proceed further, due to absence of the Presiding Officer for a long period and thereafter, the case was transferred to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 2), Bilasipara before which review application was filed. Page No.# 3/4

The learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the impugned order may not be regarded as an erroneous order on any count. However, if the petitioners are debarred from adducing evidence (defendant’s evidence) in the suit, they would be highly prejudiced.

The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is already an outstanding cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to be paid by the petitioners before the Trial Court and he is ready to pay any additional cost, if his prayer is allowed for the ends of justice.

The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there must be some error which is apparent on the phase of the record. However, same is not the case in the instant case.

It is submitted at bar that the Title Suit No. 90/2015 is fixed before the Trial Court today itself.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

This Court appreciates the honest submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order may not be regarded as an erroneous on any count. However, as the trial has not proceeded beyond the stage when the impugned order was passed, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are given one last chance to adduce their defence evidence, subject to payment of their compensatory cost to the plaintiff, i.e. the respondent No. 1 in this case.

It is made clear that the petitioners shall in addition to the cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)will also pay the arrear cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and the payment of cost shall be the condition precedent for adducing the defence evidence by the petitioners in the aforesaid Title Suit. If the petitioners fail to adduce the defence evidence on the next date fixed, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed with the suit in its normal course to its logical conclusion.

With the above observations, this civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant