Konpai Das vs Chow Chiy Seng Maunglang
2023 Latest Caselaw 1577 Gua

                                                                                         Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010000842023




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

                                   Case No. : CRP(IO)/14/2023

              KONPAI DAS
              S/O- LATE MUKUTA DAS ,
              R/O- RAJABARI GAON,
              P.O, P.S AND MOUZA- BOKAKHAT,
              DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM,
              PIN-785612



              VERSUS

              CHOW CHIY SENG MAUNGLANG
              S/O- LATE CHOW KETONG GOHAIN,
              R/O- HOUSE NO-4C, KRIME ESTATE , NO-1, BHAYAMAMA PATH, RGB
              ROAD, GUWAHATI, P.S- GEETANAGAR,
              DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781024



Advocate for the Petitioner   : N CHAUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S J SARMAH


                                   BEFORE
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                              ORDER

21.04.2023.

Heard Mr. A Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S J Sarma, for the sole respondent.

Page No.# 2/2

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 07.11.2022 and 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bokakhat in TS Case No. 03/2019.

The factual matrix leading to filing of this application lies within a short campus. The petitioner being the defendant had already taken more than three adjournments for cross-examination of the plaintiff's side. At that time, the counsel for the defendant had withdrawn from the case and a new counsel entered her appearance on behalf of the defendants. She prayed for some time to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff.

It was the fourth adjournment prayer and the trial court straightway rejected the same.

Mr. Deka submits that since a new counsel was engaged, she should have been given some time for cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff.

Mr. Sarma, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

This court is of the opinion that since a new counsel was engaged, the trial court should have given an opportunity to the new counsel to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. Moreover, the three adjournments stipulated by the Code of Civil Procedure is not a mandatory one. It is a directory provision. Therefore, the trial court should have exercised its judicial mind before rejecting the prayer of the new counsel.

Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. The trial court is directed to give at least one opportunity to the defendant so that he can cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff.

The revision petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant