Allowed

The Managing Director and 2 Ors. v. MD Habibur Rahman

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2026CRP(IO)/206/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Trial Court order expunging DW-1 evidence for lack of cross-examination. High Court allowed revision, set aside expunction, granted one last chance for cross-examination, and ordered payment of costs as a condition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; DW-1 granted last chance for cross-examination on 21.07.2026 subject to payment of Rs. 25,000 to plaintiff; expunction of evidence set aside.

The Managing Director and 2 Ors. Vs MD… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010109292026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/206/2026

¶6

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 2 ORS

¶7

ZED ENGINEERS, SITUATED AT MANIK NAGAR, HOUSE NO. 8, NURSERY, GANESHGURI, P.O. P.S.- DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, DISTRICTKAMRUP M, ASSAM.

¶8

2: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HAYAT HOSPITAL SITUATED AT UDALBAKRA GUWAHATI P.O. P.S. - FATASIL AMBARI PIN-781025 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶9

3: MR RAJIB SAIKIA SON OF LATE NEJAMAT SAIKIA RESIDENT OF MANIK NAGAR HOUSE NO. 8 NURSERY GANESHGURI P. O. P.S. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 DISTRICTKAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

MD HABIBUR RAHMAN

¶12

SON OF MATLEB ALI, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 12, GOLDEN PATH, HATIGAON, BHETAPARA ROAD, GUWAHATI- 38, P.O. P.S.- HATIGAON, DISTRICT KAMRUP M, ASSAM, STYLE M/S MAA JONAKI CONSTRUCTION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HATIGAON, GUWAHATI-,P.S AND P.O-HATIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A IKBAL, G IMTIAZ,MR A BHUYAN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date - 08.06.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. A. Ikbal, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶20

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, impugning the order dated 18.05.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Kamrup (M), in Money Suit No. 27/2012, whereby the prayer for an adjournment for cross-examination of DW-1 was rejected and the cross-examination was closed. Moreover, the evidence adduced by DW-1 in his examination-in-chief was expunged.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though, admittedly there was lapse on the part of the DW-1 to present himself for the purpose of cross-examination on the date on or before 18.05.2026, before the learned Advocate Commissioner in pursuant to the order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Trial Court in this regard earlier.

¶22

4. However, he submits that there was a communication gap in understanding the order dated 09.03.2026, whereby the DW-1 Sri Rajib Saikia was directed to present himself before the next date

¶23

Page No.# 3/5 fixed i.e. 18.05.2026. However, the same was understood by the learned counsel for the defendant as on or before next date fixed and as such, the defendant No. 1 presented himself for crossexamination on 18.05.2026 before the Trial Court.

¶24

5. He further submits that on the day when the impugned order was passed, DW-1 Sri Rajib Saikia was present before the Trial Court and the Trial Court could have directed his cross-examination on that day. However, due to reluctance on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff side, he could not be cross-examined and his evidence was closed. He further submits that though, the next date of the case was fixed on 03.06.2026 for hearing of the arguments, however, on that day the plaintiff's counsel took adjournment and now the suit is fixed for final hearing on 21.07.2026.

¶25

6. He submits that unless the DW-1 is allowed to be cross-examined, his entire evidence would be expunged and the suit would be decided without taking into consideration the evidence produced by the defendant's side and as such, he would be highly prejudiced.

¶26

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶27

8. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that apparently there is nothing to justify any interference with the impugned order on the ground of any infirmity in the same. However, considering the fact that on 03.06.2026, the arguments were not held and also considering the fact that if the DW-1 is not allowed to be cross-

¶28

Page No.# 4/5 examined, his entire evidence remains expunged as directed by the Trial Court and as such, the same shall not be taken into consideration, which would certainly prevent the Trial Court coming to a conclusion of the case by considering the version of both the sides involved.

¶29

9. Though, it is a fact that there is an apparent lapse on the part of DW-1 to present himself before the Commissioner for the purpose of cross-examination, however, it is also a fact that it would be for the interest of justice that the Trial Court to have the versions of both the parties before it, before it reaches a conclusion in the suit pending before it.

¶30

10. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is hereby modified by granting one last chance to the DW-1 to present himself before the Commissioner for the purpose of crossexamination on 21.07.2026 subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the plaintiff on that day. The payment of cost to the plaintiff side by the defendant side shall be conditioned precedent for cross-examination of the DW-1. The direction regarding expunction of the evidence of DW-1 in the impugned order is also set aside.

¶31

11. To avoid further delay in the suit, this Court is not inclined to issue any notice to the other side in this case.

¶32

12. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is interfered in the manner as indicated hereinbefore.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

13. This Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, is closed.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

The Managing Director and 2 Ors. v. MD Habibur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director and 2 Ors. v. MD Habibur Rahman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tirupati Udyog Vs Dilip Haloi

Shumar Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Kamakhaya Nath Vs the State of Assam

Himangshu Patowary Vs Smti Arati Talukdar and 3 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Deep Shikha Roy Kar and 4 Ors.

Sadhan Paul Vs Anowaruddin Wakf Estate and Anr.