GAHC010255142025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRP(IO)/478/2025

ANUPAM BORKOTOKY

SON OF SRI PRAFULLA KATAKY, RESIDENT OF MALINIPUR, ZEHIRUL

HUSSAIN ROAD, GOLAGHAT, POST OFFICE- GOLAGHAT, POLICE STATION-

GOLAGHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM)

VERSUS

SMTI MONICA MISSONG

WIFE OF SRI ANUPAM BORKOTOKY, DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANDRA

MISONG, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 3, DHEMAJI, POST

OFFICE- DHEMAJI, POLICE STATION- DHEMAJI, DISTRICT- DHEMAJI

(ASSAM), PIN- 787057

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B BORA, MR P S RAJA

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

20.11.2025

Date :

1. Heard Mr. D. Bora, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

has been filed by the petitioner, impugning the order dated

15.09.2025 passed in Title Suit (D) No. 26/2024 passed by the court of learned District Judge, Dhemaji, whereby the prayer for adjournment on that day was made by the present petitioner rejected and the evidence of the plaintiff side was caused thereby depriving the petitioner cross-examining the PW-2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is the wife of the present petitioner and who has instituted a divorce proceeding in the court of the learned District Judge which has been registered a Title Suit (D) No. 26/2024. He submits that on 15.09.2025, the said Title Suit was fixed for cross-

examination of PW-2, who is the brother of the petitioner’s wife.

4. He submits that on that day the petitioner could not attend the court as he had to remain busy due to visit of the Prime Minister of India to Numligarh Refinery and as he is presently posted as Senior Engineer in the said Refinery, he could not get leave on that day and to that effect he had filed a petition seeking adjournment. However, the trial court, by the impugned order has rejected the prayer for adjournment and closed the examination of plaintiff’s witnesses and fixed this case for next date for examination of defence witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cross examination of PW-2 is vital to the case of the present petitioner and if he is allowed to cross examine he would be greatly prejudiced.

6. He also submits that though in the impugned order, it has been reflected that the cost imposed on him on earlier occasions has not been paid, however he has already paid the said amount through his engaged counsel.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the aforementioned tittle suit is fixed tomorrow before the trial court for cross examination of DWs. He submits that he is ready to abide by any condition, however, unless a chance of cross examining the PW-2 is given to him, he would be highly prejudiced.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the materials on record.

9. It appears that the trial court rejected the prayer for adjournment by the present petitioner mainly on the ground that the present petitioner is taking adjournments at every stage of proceedings and he has not paid the cost imposed on him by order dated 06.06.2025. Further, the ground stated by the petitioner in his adjournment application was not found to be a satisfactory ground, by the court.

10. It, however, appears that the suit in question is a divorce suit, consequence of which may be severance of matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and his wife and, therefore, in the considered opinion of the court may be granted approximately cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. This Court considering the nature of this dispute (matrimonial dispute) which is there between the parties is inclined to allow this revision petition by providing that the petitioner may be allowed to cross-examine PW-2 on a date to be fixed by the trial court subject to payment of a cost or Rs. 5,000/- in addition to pay