THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM & Anr. v. SMTI. DEEPA PAUL AND 2 ORS
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 29 Aug 2025
- Bench
- PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 18 r. 17
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Judgment
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/362/2025 RAJDIP PAUL AND ANR S/O LATE BIJOY PAUL, R/O AMOLAPATTY, SIVASAGAR TOWN, WARD NO. 09, P.O., P.S.- SIVASAGAR, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM 2: GITA RANI PAUL W/O LATE BIJOY PAUL R/O AMOLAPATTY SIVASAGAR TOWN WARD NO. 09 P.O. P.S.- SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSA VERSUS SMTI. DEEPA PAUL AND 2 ORS. W/O SRI BASUDEV PAUL, R/O VILL- LACHIT NAGAR, SANGRAM PATH, W/NO. 09, P.O. AND P.S.- SIVASAGAR, DIST- SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785640 2:BASUDEV PAUL S/O LATE RAIMOHAN PAUL R/O VILL- LACHIT NAGAR SANGRAM PATH W/NO. 09 P.O. AND P.S.- SIVASAGAR DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640 3:PRADIP KUMAR SARMAH S/O LATE PRAFULLA CH. SARMAH R/O KAILASH NAGAR ROAD Page No.# 2/3 HOUSE NO. 1 PANJABARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-78103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K DAS, M KHATONIAR,MS. S DAS,MS. P BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA Date : 29.08.2025 ORDER
Heard Mr. D. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners.
This application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order dated 25.03.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sivasagar in Misc (J) Case No.84/2024, arising out of Title Suit No.31/2022.
The DW-1 was partly cross-examined but because of her illness, she had to leave the Court and the Trial Court discharged her.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that her cross-examination was not complete as she had to leave the Court because of her illness. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the original sale deed was also not produced by the Bank and she remained to be further examined. Therefore an application was filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the said Code to recall her. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court.
I have gone through the materials available in the record and I have decided to agree with Mr. Das that the DW-1 was erroneously discharged, whereas her cross- examination is yet to be complete. Page No.# 3/3
Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner is set aside.
The Trial Court is directed to resume cross-examination of the DW-1. The DW-1 shall be recalled for that purpose.
The Bank Authority shall also produce the Sale Deed on the next date fixed (i.e. on 14.10.2025) for cross-examination of the DW-1.
Operative part
With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Comparing Assistant JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 18 r. 17.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 29 Aug 2025. The bench was PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.