CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | CRP(I/O) 55/2016 |
| Judgement Date | April 20, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
CRP( I / O) 55 of 2016
-
SRI NI RAN GARO
-
SRI NI RMAL BORO
-
SRI LANKESHWAR BORO
-
SRI NAMAL BORO
-
SMT. LI STI BORO
-
SMT. RITA BORO …..Petitioners Vs
SRI TULI RAM GARO (PATOR) .…Respondent
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
Advocates for the Petitioners : Mr. M. Talukdar, Ms. M. Talukdar,
: Mr. B. Pegu.
Advocates for the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, Mr. K. Saikia,
: Mr. K. Ali.
Date of hearing and Order : 20.04.2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL)
-
Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
-
By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in T.S. No. 244/ 2015, by which the written statement was accepted, subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/ -.
CRP (I / O) 55/ 2016 Page 1 of
-
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case in hand the suit was filed on 03.07.2015 and summons was issued on the defendant/ respondent herein on 13.07.2015. Despite service of summons, respondent herein did not appear before the Trial Court and, as such, by order dated 15.07.2015, the suit was fixed on 10.08.2015 for ex-parte evidence of plaintiff’s witness. On
10.08.2015, the respondent herein filed an application under Order I X Rule 7 of the CPC showing cause for the previous non appearance before the Trial Court and a prayer was made to vacate the order dated 15.07.2015 to proceed ex-parte against the respondent herein. He further submits that notwithstanding the prayer of vacating the order to proceed ex-parte being allowed by order dated 06.05.2016, the written statement which was filed on 11.02.2016 was beyond the time prescribed under Rule 1 of Order 8 of the CPC.
-
By relying on the case of Thokchom Ongbi Gayabati Devi and Ors. vs. Konthoujam Bebungou Singh and Anr., 2009 (2) GLT 801 and Basant Singhania vs. Dilip Singhania, 2011 (3) GLT 469 he submits that as the written statement was not accompanied by any application claiming leave of the court to accept the written statement and there was no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing of the written statement, the impugned order dated 25.04.2016 to accept the written statement filed on 11.02.2016 is initiated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial