ORDER

Date : 07-01-2022 Heard Mr. A.J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondents.

Order dated 20.08.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar in Title Suit No.

15/2008, is challenged in this Civil Revision petition. Be it noted here that vide aforesaid order, the learned Court below has dismissed the petition being Petition No. 830/2018, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to allow him to adduce further evidence.

Mr. A.J. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the relevant date i.e. 20.08.2018 the petitioner/plaintiff and his counsel remained absent and the learned Court below in absence of the petitioner/plaintiff and his counsel passed the order on the petition No. 830/2018, whereby the prayer for adducing further evidence was rejected. It is further submitted that examination of one official witness to prove his case by the petitioner/plaintiff is very much necessary, and therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the petition before the learned Court below which came to be rejected without hearing the petitioner/plaintiff and his counsel. Therefore it is contended to set aside the impugned order to allow the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce further evidence.

On the other hand Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner/plaintiff was granted sufficient time to adduce evidence and the case was old pending, and therefore, the learned Court below has passed the order dismissing the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff and as such the impugned order suffers from no illegality or impropriety requiring interference of this Court.

Having heard the submission of learned counsel of both sides, I have gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the impugned order dated 20.08.2018. It is not in dispute on the date of impugned order the petitioner and his counsel remained absent. But, in spite of absence of the petitioner/plaintiff and his counsel the learned Court below has provided to hear and dismissed the petition. Thus passing an order affecting the rights of a party behind his back is contrary to the principle of natural justice, which simply means the unbiased, fair, and just method of legal proceedings. The court must give reasonable time to both the parties a fair and equal opportunity to proceed their case. Needles to mention here that right to fair trial is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An order passed without harming the parties which affects their fundamental right is void. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs. The State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1471. Viewed from this stand point, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality as it was passed behind the back of the parties and if allowed to stand it will perpetuate the illegality and prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff.

In view of above, the impugned order dated 20.08.2018, stands set aside. It is provided that the parties shall appear before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar on 23.02.2022 and thereafter the learned Court shall hear both the parties on the Petition No.

830/2018, and thereafter, decide the same in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this CRP stands disposed of, at this admission stage.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant