##PAGE1##

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010037652026

undefined

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

Case No. : CRP(IO)/68/2026

KUTUB UDDIN LASKAR SON OF LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILL. AND P.O.

DHONIPUR, P.S. SONAI, PIN-788120, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM

VERSUS

MUKTARUN NESSA LASKAR AND 3 ORS.

WIFE OF FAKAR UDDIN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILL. AND P.O.

DHONIPUR, P.S. SONAI, PIN-788120, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM

2:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR

PIN-788001

3:ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER SONAI CIRCLE

P.O. AND P.S. SONAI DIST- CACHAR ASSAM

4:BIRBAL CHAUHAN ASI

SONAI POLICE STATION P.O. SONAI PIN-788119

DIST- CACHAR ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA, J P BAISHYA,MR. JITU SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

Page No.# 2/6

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

ORDER

Date : 06.04.2026

Heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2025, passed by the learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 57/2015.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar (‘trial Court’, for short) has dismissed the petition No. 1215/07, filed by the petitioner for

granting adjournment and fixing another date for cross-examination of P.W.s.

4. Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to order dated 11.03.2026, the petitioner herein has filed one additional affidavit bringing on record the orders of the learned trial Court to show the adjournments, which the petitioner herein had availed, and the same is enclosed with the additional affidavit as Annexure-8. Mr. Purkayastha also submits that vide impugned order dated 27.11.2025, the learned trial Court had rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff’s side took adjournment on several occasions earlier and thereafter, dismissed the same. Mr. Purkayastha further submits that the petitioner, in petition No. 1215/07, has mentioned the reason that due to illness, he could not remain present in the Court and as it was a sudden illness, no medical documents could be enclosed with the said petition, and that when sufficient ground is assigned for taking

Page No.# 3/6

adjournment, the Court may grant the same.

4.1. In support of his submission Mr. Purkayastha has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2011) 9 SCC 678, and also referred to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Km. Chandra Govindji, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532. Under such circumstances, Mr. Purkayastha has contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order, which, according to him, is arbitrary and

illegal.

5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the impugned order dated 27.11.2025. Also gone through the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, by which the petitioner has brought on record the orders of the learned trial Court w.e.f.

06.04.2023 to 01.06.2024, as Annexure-8 in the said additional affidavit.

6. The impugned order dated 27.11.2025, is extracted herein below in order to deal with the issue involved in this petition with greater precision:

“Order Date: 27.11.2025

Defendant side is represented.

Today is the date fixed for Cross of PWs.

Plaintiff has filed a petition vide no. 1215/07 sought for an adjournment on the ground as mentioned in the

petition.

Perusal of the case record reveals that the plaintiff side took adjournments on several occasions earlier.

Page No.# 4/6

Hence, the prayer so made in the petition no. 1215/07 stands rejected

In view of the above, I