GAHC010216682025 2025:GAU-AS:13461 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRP(IO)/416/2025 MD EUSHOOF ALI SON OF LATE MANOHAR ALI, RESIDENT OF M.R. ROAD, NALIAPOOL, P.O -

DIBRUGARH, P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS SMTI HALIMA KHATOON AND 2 ORS.

WIFE OF LATE TAUHID ALI, RESIDENT OF SULTAN PATH, NALIAPOOL P.O.

AND P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH.

2:SMTI MARUFA KHATOON DAUGHTER OF LATE TAUHID ALI RESIDENT OF SULTAN PATH NALIAPOOL P.O. AND P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH

3:SMTI LUCKY KHATOON DAUGHTER OF LATE TAUHID ALI RESIDENT OF SULTAN PATH NALIAPOOL P.O. AND P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR R CHAKRAVORTY, MR. P SARMAH,R BASUMATARY Advocate for the Respondent : MR SISHIR DUTTA (FOR CAVEATOR), MS K BORAH (FOR CAVEATOR),MR S DUTTA (FOR CAVEATOR)

PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Chakraborty, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate.

Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025. Date of Judgment : 26.09.2025.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.2, Dibrugarh in T.S. No.160/2015 [(now pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.3].

3. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondents in respect of a dwelling house. He filed the suit with a prayer that he should not be evicted from the said premises without due process of law. The petitioner being the plaintiff filed his evidence-on-affidavit in the year 2016 and till today, he has been taking several adjournments. Therefore, his cross-examination by the defendants could not take place.

Ultimately, the trial court expunged his evidence-on-affidavit.

4. The petitioner was depositing the rent for the dwelling house in the court. Therefore, he filed an application in the court praying for a direction calling the Shirastadar of the Rent Control Court to prove the fact that he was regularly depositing the rent in the court.

5. The trial court refused the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not mention the number of Misc (NJ) cases, which he wanted to prove.

6. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that because of health issues and other issues like Roza, the petitioner could not appear before court to stand cross-examination by the defendants. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that it is not only the petitioner but the defendants also took several adjournments, which ultimately caused delay in disposal of the case.

7. Assailing the manner in which the case has been dragged for so many years, Mr. Dutta has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344. Paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the said judgment are quoted as under:

“Adjournments

29. Order 17 of the Code relates to grant of adjournments. Two amendments have been made therein.

One that adjournment shall not be granted to a party more than three times during hearing of the suit. The other relates to the costs of adjournment. The awarding of costs has been made mandatory. Costs that can be awarded are of two types. First, costs occasioned by the adjournment and second such higher costs as the court deems fit.

30. While examining the scope of the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) that more than three adjournments shall not be granted, it is to be kept in view that the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) incorporating clauses (a) to (e) by Act 104 of 1976 has been retained. Clause (b) stipulates that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. The proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) and Order 17 Rule 1(2) have to be read toget