SMTI. MOUCHUMI PATHAK @ MOUSUMI PATHAK AND 3 ORS v. PRANJAL SHARMA @ BABLU
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 14 Nov 2022
- Bench
- KALYAN RAI SURANA
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, this application has been filed under Section 24 CPC for transfer of the proceeding of TS (M) 87/2021 from the court of learned District Judge, Sivasagar to the court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. Page No.# 3/3
- Para 77. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Judgment
SMTI. MOUCHUMI PATHAK @ MOUSUMI PATHAK AND 3 ORS W/O- SRI PRANJAL SHARMA, D/O- LATE RATNESWAR PATHAK, R/O- BAMUN PUKHURI TINI ALI, P.O. BAMUN PUKHURI, P.S. TEOK, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM 2: SMTI. MAATO PATHAK D/O- LATE RATNESWAR PATHAK R/O- BAMUN PUKHURI TINI ALI P.O. BAMUN PUKHURI P.S. TEOK DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 3: SMTI. MAMONI PATHAK D/O- LATE RATNESWAR PATHAK R/O- BAMUN PUKHURI TINI ALI P.O. BAMUN PUKHURI P.S. TEOK DIST. JORHAT ASSAM 4: SMTI. TUTU PATHAK D/O- LATE RATNESWAR PATHAK R/O- BAMUN PUKHURI TINI ALI P.O. BAMUN PUKHURI P.S. TEOK DIST. JORHAT ASSA VERSUS PRANJAL SHARMA @ BABLU S/O- LATE MADAN SHARMA, R/O- PRAFULLA PHUKON PATH, PHUKON NAGAR, WARD NO. 09, SIVASAGAR TOWN, P.O. AND DIST. SIVASAGAR, Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM, PIN- 785640. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I C DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA Date : 14.11.2022 ORDER Mr. I.C. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to affidavit of dasti service filed on 27.05.2022 and it is submitted that notice on respondent was served to him personally in presence of his brother and witnesses. Accordingly, notice is deemed to be duly served on the respondent.
It is projected that the petitioner no.1, who is the estrange wife of the sole respondent has filed TS (M) 132/2021 seeking decree of divorce, which is pending for disposal before the court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. In the said proceeding, the respondent had appeared and filed his written statement on 23.02.2022. However, without indicating that he had also filed TS (M) 87/2021 before the court of learned District Judge, Sivasagar seeking divorce. It is submitted that the defendant nos. 2 to 4 in TS (M) 87/2021 are the sisters of the petitioner no.1 and they have joined the petitioner no.1 as petitioner nos. 2 to 4 in this application.
Accordingly, this application has been filed under Section 24 CPC for transfer of the proceeding of TS (M) 87/2021 from the court of learned District Judge, Sivasagar to the court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. Page No.# 3/3
As per the affidavit of dasti service filed on 27.05.2022, notice of this application was served on the respondent. However, he has not appeared to contest this case.
Considering that the petitioner no.1 is the estranged wife of the respondent and she has also filed a divorce suit before the court of learned District Judge, Jorhat, therefore, in order to avoid conflicting judgment and decree in the two suits, the Court is inclined to transfer the proceeding of TS (M) 87/2021 from the Court of learned District Judge, Sivasagar to the court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. The learned District Judge, Sivasagar while transferring the record shall provide the date for appearance for the parties before the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat.
The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this order before the court of learned District Judge, Sivasagar in connection with TS (M) 87/2021 so as to enable the said learned Court to do the needful.
Operative part
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 14 Nov 2022. The bench was KALYAN RAI SURANA.
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.