Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 21 March, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010195582021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/125/2021
BINOD CHIRANIA AND 3 ORS.
S/O LT. BALBHADRA CHIRANIA R/O WARD NO. 3, GAURIPUR, P.O. AND P.S.
GAURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783331
2: MANOJ CHIRANIA
S/O LT. BALBHADRA CHIRANIA R/O WARD NO. 3
GAURIPUR
P.O. AND P.S. GAURIPUR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783331
3: PAPPU CHIRANIA
S/O LT. BALBHADRA CHIRANIA R/O WARD NO. 3
GAURIPUR
P.O. AND P.S. GAURIPUR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783331
4: RAJESH CHIRANIA
S/O LT. BALBHADRA CHIRANIA R/O WARD NO. 3
GAURIPUR
P.O. AND P.S. GAURIPUR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-78333
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP.BY ITS COLLECTOR DHUBRI
2:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER
Page No.# 2/4
DHUBRI
3:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER
DHUBRI
4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
GAURIPUR POLICE STATION
GAURIPUR
DHUBRI-783331
5:KALI MANDIR
GAURIPUR BAZAR
REP. BY THE SECRETARY GAURANGA DUTTA
S/O P. BHUSHAN DUTTA
R/O GAURIPUR WARD NO. 2
SUBBHAS PALLI
GAURIPUR
DHUBRI-783331
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K MAHANTA (Sr. Advocate)
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
21.03.2022
Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. N.
Begum, Advocate. Also heard Mr. T. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.
1,2,3 and 4 whereas Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 5.
This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the order dated
16.12.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 34/2014 is put to challenge.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the factual matrix given rise to this application is like this: -
Title Suit 34/2014 is pending since 2014 and the petitioner, being the plaintiff before the court
below has not yet adduced his evidence. The reason is not only because of the fault of the
petitioner. Many other petitions were filed by the petitioner and time consumed for disposal of the
Page No.# 3/4
said applications.
Finally, when the case was posted for filing evidence by the petitioner, he prayed for an
adjournment on medical grounds. The trial court rejected the prayer for adjournment on the
ground that on many previous occasions, the petitioner has already taken adjournments.
The learned senior counsel Mr. Mahanta has submitted that the trial court has taken a
hypertechnical approach while dealing with the matter. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Mahanta
has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Kailash v. Nanhku and
others, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. In para 28 of the said judgment, it was held as under:
"28. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the
draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of
prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party
should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice
dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions
of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would
leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. The
observations made by Krishna Iyer, J. in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar [(1975) 1 SCC 774]
are pertinent: (SCC p. 777, paras 5-6)
"The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge's conscience and points an angry
interrogation at the law reformer.
The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and
substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the
mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to
act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. ... Justice
is the goal of jurisprudence -- processual, as much as substantive."
On the other hand, Ms. R. Choudhury has submitted that taking opportunity of this litigation
the petitioner has been deriving benefits by depriving some other people involved with the
temple of their rights.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for
both the sides.
At this stage, I have some reasons to agree with the respondents on the point that since
2014, the suit is still pending only because of the conduct of the petitioner. But so far as the
court exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I am of the opinion
that the trial court did not consider the medical ground in a proper manner. The court
rejected the medical ground because the petitioner has already taken several adjournments.
Page No.# 4/4
A court of law exists to dispense justice to the litigants. In such a background, the
courts are duty bound to see that justice is quickly dispensed. Therefore, any endeavour by
any litigant to delay the justice dispensation procedure must be taken care of by court. In the
instant case, the non-consideration of the medical ground is a perversity and for that matter,
this is a fit case for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated
16.12.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 34/2014 is set asked. Accordingly,
the petitioner is directed to file his evidence on 28.04.2022 in the court below subject to payment
of a cost of Rs.3,000/-. If the cost is paid on that day, the evidence shall be accepted and if the
same is not paid, this order shall stand discharged automatically. It is also directed that on every
future adjournment prayers made by the petitioner, if allowed, shall be subject to payment of
Rs.500/-.
With the aforesaid directions the present civil revision petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
