Page No.# 1/5 vs Smti Halima Khatoon And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 7689 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs Smti Halima Khatoon And 2 Ors on 26 September, 2025

Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia

Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia

                                                                      Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010216682025




                                                               2025:GAU-AS:13461

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

                              Case No. : CRP(IO)/416/2025

            MD EUSHOOF ALI
            SON OF LATE MANOHAR ALI, RESIDENT OF M.R. ROAD, NALIAPOOL, P.O -
            DIBRUGARH, P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            SMTI HALIMA KHATOON AND 2 ORS.
            WIFE OF LATE TAUHID ALI, RESIDENT OF SULTAN PATH, NALIAPOOL P.O.
            AND P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH.

            2:SMTI MARUFA KHATOON
             DAUGHTER OF LATE TAUHID ALI
             RESIDENT OF SULTAN PATH
             NALIAPOOL P.O. AND P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGARH

            3:SMTI LUCKY KHATOON
             DAUGHTER OF LATE TAUHID ALI
             RESIDENT OF SULTAN PATH
             NALIAPOOL P.O. AND P.S AND DISTRICT - DIBRUGAR

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR R CHAKRAVORTY, MR. P SARMAH,R BASUMATARY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR SISHIR DUTTA (FOR CAVEATOR), MS K BORAH (FOR

CAVEATOR),MR S DUTTA (FOR CAVEATOR) Page No.# 2/5

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Chakraborty, Advocate.

                       For the Respondents      :           Mr. S. Dutta,
                                                            Senior Advocate.

                       Date of Hearing           :          22.09.2025.
                       Date of Judgment          :          26.09.2025.


                                  JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.2, Dibrugarh in T.S. No.160/2015 [(now pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No.3].

3. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondents in respect of a dwelling house. He filed the suit with a prayer that he should not be evicted from the said premises without due process of law. The petitioner being the plaintiff filed his evidence-on-affidavit in the year 2016 and till today, he has been taking several adjournments. Therefore, his cross-examination by the defendants could not take place. Ultimately, the trial court expunged his evidence-on-affidavit.

4. The petitioner was depositing the rent for the dwelling house in the court. Therefore, he filed an application in the court praying for a direction calling the Shirastadar of the Rent Control Court to prove the fact that he was regularly depositing the rent in the court.

5. The trial court refused the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not mention the number of Misc (NJ) cases, which he wanted to prove.

6. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that because of health issues and other issues like Roza, the petitioner could not appear before court to stand cross-examination by the defendants. Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that it is not only the petitioner but the defendants also took several adjournments, which ultimately caused delay in disposal of the case.

7. Assailing the manner in which the case has been dragged for so many years, Mr. Dutta has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344. Paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the said judgment are quoted as under:

"Adjournments

29. Order 17 of the Code relates to grant of adjournments. Two amendments have been made therein.

Page No.# 3/5

One that adjournment shall not be granted to a party more than three times during hearing of the suit. The other relates to the costs of adjournment. The awarding of costs has been made mandatory. Costs that can be awarded are of two types. First, costs occasioned by the adjournment and second such higher costs as the court deems fit.

30. While examining the scope of the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) that more than three adjournments shall not be granted, it is to be kept in view that the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) incorporating clauses

(a) to (e) by Act 104 of 1976 has been retained. Clause (b) stipulates that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party.

The proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) and Order 17 Rule 1(2) have to be read together. So read, Order 17 does not forbid grant of adjournment where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party. In such a case, there is no restriction on the number of adjournments to be granted. It cannot be said that even if the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, after having obtained the third adjournment, no further adjournment would be granted. There may be cases beyond the control of a party despite the party having obtained three adjournments. For instance, a party may be suddenly hospitalised on account of some serious ailment or there may be serious accident or some act of God leading to devastation. It cannot be said that though the circumstances may be beyond the control of a party, further adjournment cannot be granted because of the restriction of three adjournments as provided in the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1.

31. In some extreme cases, it may become necessary to grant adjournment despite the fact that three adjournments have already been granted (take the example of the Bhopal gas tragedy, Gujarat earthquake and riots, and devastation on account of the tsunami). Ultimately, it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, on the basis whereof the court would decide to grant or refuse adjournment. The provision for costs and higher costs has been made because of the practice having been developed to award only nominal costs even when adjournment on payment of costs is granted. Ordinarily, where the costs or higher costs are awarded, the same should be realistic, and as far as possible actual costs that had to be incurred by the other party shall be awarded where the adjournment is found to be avoidable, but is being granted on account of either negligence or casual approach of a party or is being sought to delay the progress of the case or on any such reason. Further, to save the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is necessary to read it down so as not to take away the discretion of the court in the extreme hard cases noted above. The limitation of three adjournments would not apply where adjournment is to be granted on account of circumstances which are beyond the control of a party. Even in cases which may not strictly come within the category of circumstances beyond the control of a party, the court by resorting to the provision of higher costs which can also include punitive costs in the discretion of the court, adjournment beyond three can be granted having regard to the injustice that may result on refusal thereof, with reference to Page No.# 4/5

peculiar facts of a case. We may, however, add that grant of any adjournment, let alone the first, second or third adjournment, is not a right of a party. The grant of adjournment by a court has to be on a party showing special and extraordinary circumstances. It cannot be in routine. While considering the prayer for grant of adjournment, it is necessary to keep in mind the legislative intent to restrict the grant of adjournments."

8. Mr. Dutta has submitted that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner.

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

10. At this stage, I must mention that the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 is a beautifully authored by the learned trial court. Since 2016, till now, the petitioner did not appear before the trial court to stand cross-examination by the defendants. For calling the Shirastadar of the Rent Control Court, the case numbers of rent deposit cases were not mentioned. The oral evidence of the Shirastadar without case records would be futile. In Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal and Ors., reported in (2021) 12 SCC 612, the Supreme Court has held as under:

"9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a time, the task of adjournments is used to kill justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.

10. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom the courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants."

11. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he has dragged the case for so many years and deprived the court below from disposing of the litigation. The conduct of the petitioner is not good at all.

Page No.# 5/5

12. This Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances, the present civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and therefore stands dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant