TITLE SUIT No. 34 of 2006 · Gauhati High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- S TALAPATRA
Outcome
Allowed
However, this petition is allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. IX r. 7
Judgment
It appears from the order dated 18.12.2006 that the said suit was fixed on 16.01.2007 for filing objection against the petition No.4276 of 2005 by the d efendant. But on 16.01.2007 the defendant was absent without any step. As conseq uence thereupon, the Munsiff, Charaideo, Sonari passed the order dated 16.01.200 7 holding that the suit would proceed ex parte against the defendant. The defend ant for setting aside the said order for ex parte proceeding as passed against h im filed a petition under Order IX, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC pray ing that since he was under medical treatment, he could not contact his engaged lawyer and also did not know that the suit was transferred to the present Court. On the face of the serious objection raised by the plaintiff that from t he records it would transpire that the contention of the defendant that he had n o knowledge about the transfer of the case was absolutely misleading and factual ly incorrect as after transfer of the suit the defendant took steps on 28.08.200 6, 11.09.2006, 07.11.2006, 20.11.2006 and 18.12.2006.
On the basis of that, the Munsiff, Charaideo, Sonari by the impugned ord er dated 10.09.2007 rejected the prayer for setting aside the order for ex parte proceeding as passed on 16.01.2007. Being aggrieved, the defendant approached to this Court by filing the pr esent petition. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that at best the defendant could have been deprived of raising any objection against the petition No.4276 of 2005. But how the Munsiff had passed the impugned order dated 16.01.2007 without following the required steps as per the Civil Procedur e Code. This Court finds sufficient force in the submissions of Mr. Sahewalla, l earned Senior Advocate. While responding, Ms. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent candidly submitted that except the conduct of the present petitioner she has no serious objection against the prayer. She expressed her anguish about the way the defend ant, the petitioner herein, conducted in the Court proceeding.
Operative part
There can be no disagreement with the submission of Ms. Dutta, learned counsel f or the respondent. As such, the impugned order dated 16.01.2007 and the order da ted 10.09.2007 are set aside by this Court with a direction to the Munsiff, Char aideo, Sonari to hear the petition No.4276 of 2005 on considering whether the de fendant would be given any further opportunity of filing any objection or not. However, this petition is allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Ru pees one thousand) only to the plaintiff before the next date so fixed. The parties are directed to appear before the Munsiff, Charaideo, Sonari on 05.0 2.2013 as there would be no notice from the Court of Munsiff, Charaideo, Sonari for appearance of the parties. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: However, this petition is allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. IX r. 7.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.