M/S Anjani Tea Company vs M/S Moyuri Tea Blending And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3636 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010171002023




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

                                Case No. : CRP(IO)/251/2023

            M/S ANJANI TEA COMPANY
            HAVING ITS OFFICE AT TENGA GAON, TALAP, P.O.-TALAP, P.S.-
            DOOMDOOMA, DIST-TINSUKIA, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS
            PARTNER SRI RAM PATWARI, S/O LATE CHHAGAN LAL PATWARI, R/O NA-
            PUKHURI ROAD, P.O., P.S. AND DIST-TINSUKIA, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            M/S MOYURI TEA BLENDING AND PACKAGING IND AND ANR
            A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SRI RAMESH KUMAR BAGARIA, HAVING
            ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HOUSE NO 11, RODALI PATH, JONAK NAGAR,
            KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

            2:RAMESH KUMAR BAGARIA
             C/O M/S MOYURI TEA BLENDING AND PACKAGING IND
             R/O RUDRESWAR APARTMENT
             FLAT NO. 2D
             DINESH OJHA PATH
             BHANGAGARH
             GUWAHATI
            ASSAM
             PIN-78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A K GUPTA

Advocate for the Respondent :
                                                                                            Page No.# 2/2




                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                            JUDGMENT

11.09.2023 Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Money Suit No. 44/2020.

The petitioner, being the plaintiff, filed the evidence-on-affidavit of the PW-1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application by referring to the Trial Courts and First Appellate Subordinate Courts (under the Gauhati High Court) Case Management Rules, 2007 and prayed before the court below for starting the examination, cross-examination and re-examination of the PW-1 but the same was rejected by the trial court.

I have gone through the impugned order. This court is of the opinion that the trial court has not exercised its power in true perspective. Also, this court is of the opinion that if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, no prejudice will cause to the other side. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed.

The trial court is directed to start the examination, cross-examination and re- examination of the PW-1 and, thereafter, the petitioner shall file affidavit-in-opposition of the remaining PWs.

With the aforesaid direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant