CR (P) No. (SH) 55 of 2009. Case: Basant Singhania Vs Dilip Singhania. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | CR (P) No. (SH) 55 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. B. Bhattacharjee & Mr. S. Changkija Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. H. Kharmih, Adv. |
| Judges | Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 10, 114, 151 - Order 9, Rules 7, 13 - Order 47, Rule 1 |
| Citation | 2011 (3) GLT 469 |
| Judgement Date | May 30, 2011 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Judgment:
B. K. Sharma, J.
-
This Civil Revision petition is directed against the Annexure-V order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong, in Misc case No. 18(H) 2008 arising out of Title Suit No. 22 (SH) 2005, by which the application filed by the defendant in the suit who is the respondent in this Revision petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the order for exparte hearing of the Suit was allowed. The said order was carried on Review by the plaintiff petitioner but the said Review application has also been dismissed by order dated 03.09.2009 (Annexure-IX). Hence, this Revision petition. Another challenge made is against order dated 22.07.2008 passed in the Title Suit allowing the defendant respondent to file written statement after expiry of the stipulated period for doing so. For ready reference the impugned orders/their operative parts are quoted below:-
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT JUDGE AT SHILLONG
Misc. Case No. 18 (H) of 2009
Shri Dilip Singhania: Petitioner
S/o (L) T. Singhania
Thana Road, Shillong.: Opposite Party
Shri Basant Singhania
S/o (L) T. Singhania
Thana Road, Shillong.
22.07.2008
Submission heard on 18.07.2008 and today is reserved for passing order.
The Petitioner/Defendant filed an application for condonation of the delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The Notice was issued to the Opposite Party/plaintiff and the opposite party/Plaintiff also filed show cause, praying to allow his show cause and to dismiss the application filed by the Petitioner/ Defendant. However, the Petitioner/Defendant's Counsel submitted that the Opposite party/ Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with regards to the landed property situated at Police Bazar Thana Road Shillong being TS No. 22(H) 05. The Petitioner/ Defendant entered appearance and contested the suit. That on 31.03.2006, the Court passed an order directing the Case to proceed ex-parte against Petitioner/Defendant on failing of filing of W/S. That there is delay of 759 days in filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 31.03.2006, as there is lack of communication between the previous lawyers of the Petitioner/Defendant and they were not aware of the status of the Case. Hence pray to admit the petition and condone the delay and allow the Petitioner/Defendant to contest the case of merit. The Petitioner/Defendant relied for his submission upon 2007 57 AIC 942 OR 1 H.C) Orissa High Court between Suresh Bhai and Uiagar Urma and others.
The Opposite Party/Plaintiff objected to the applications of the Petitioner/Defendant tried to mislead the Court by suppressing the facts. The Opposite Party/Plaintiff submits that delay for ling of the application Under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was 2(two) years and therefore the contention by the petitioner/Defendant that the delay was due to lack of communication with the previous lawyers contains no merit and this apparently shows that the intention of the Petitioner/Defendant is only to delay the Proceeding of the case and the Opposite/Plaintiff therefore pray to consider his Show cause and dismiss the application of the Petitioner/Defendant.
Heard both the Counsels perused the case record. As the Parties are both the sons of Shri (L) T Singhania whose landed property was allotted by virtue of the Deed of family settlement. I am of the considered view to allow the petition of the Petitioner/Defendant and allow the Parties to contest on merit.
Accordingly the petition for condonation of delay and the application Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is allowed and case is disposed of.
Sd/-
Smti. MB Chalam
Asstt. District Judge
Shillong.
03.092009
.... Upon considering prayer for reviewing the order dated 22.07.05 filed by the review petitioner/plaintiff, I have perused the written argument of the review petitioner/plaintiff and the answering OP/defendant, case record, relevant materials on record and an application under Section 114 of the CPC being Petition No. 268/ 08 dated 25.08.08 for reviewing the order dated 22.7.08 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No. 18 (H) 08 arising out of Title Suit No. 22 (H) 2008. It is seen that all decrees of orders cannot be reviewed, the right of review has been conferred by Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code.
Any person aggrieved:-
(a) by decree or order for which no appeal is allowed by this code, but for which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this code.
(c) by a decision on reference from a Court of small causes.
May apply for review of Judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order and the Court may make such order there on as it thinks fit on the following grounds:-
(1) discover by the applicant of new and important matter with in his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or
(2) on account of mistake or error apparent on face of record.
(3) For any sufficient reason.
However in the light of the above and after perusal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......
-
CRP(I/O) 55/2016. Gauhati High Court
...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 stateme......