Gauhati High Court
CRP/18/2026 of Enam Pralo Vs Toko Gana on 31 March 2026
GAHC040004482026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/18/2026 Enam Pralo Son of Late Muti Pralo, resident of Engolin, Mipi Circle, PO and PS Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh 792101 VERSUS Toko Gana
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC040004482026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : CRP/18/2026
Enam Pralo
Son of Late Muti Pralo, resident of Engolin, Mipi Circle, PO and PS Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh 792101
VERSUS
Toko Gana
Son of Shri Toko Nega, C/o PHED and WS, Anini, Dibang Valley District, Arunachal Pradesh 792101
Advocate for the Petitioner : Sunil Mow, D Tatum,Tenzin Chhoten,Tali Umbey,Chanya Bangsia,Sonam Tsomo,Madan Mili,k N Maling Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 01-04-2026 Heard Ms. S. Tsomo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is directed against the order dated 10.02.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roing, in Misc. Case No. 31/2025 in Money Suit No. 01/2025, whereby the Page No.# 2/2 application for condonation of delay of 5 (five) days was allowed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the opposite party/petitioner herein and permitted the dependent to file written statement.
3. The impugned order dated 10.02.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roing, is purely interlocutory in nature and has been passed in exercise of judicial discretion. Further, it neither decides the rights of the parties finally nor te order suffers from any jurisdictional error or patent illegality.
4. It is well-settled law that such discretionary orders passed by the Magistrate in exercise of its discretionary power do not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 or under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227.
5. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.
6. The revision petition is dismissed at the motion stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant