TITLE SUIT No. 20 of 2005 · Gauhati High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
est the present suit is allowed to be given for the purpose of deciding the disp
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
It appears from the facts narrated above that though the present petitioner has entered appearance on 20th May, 2005, on receipt of the summons, it filed an app lication on 2nd July, 2005 for furnishing the copies of the documents, which wer e ultimately made available to them in the month of July, 2005 itself. Thereafte r, an application for furnishing the full and better particulars were filed, whi ch application has not been disposed of till date. Thereafter, on 8th June, 2010 an application has been filed for granting further 15(fifteen) days time to fil e the written statement, which was eventually filed on 25th June, 2010. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, and als o the fact that another suit filed by the present petitioner against the respond ents arising out of the same agency contract has been instituted and pending in the Court at Satna, Madhya Pradesh, I am of the view that an opportunity to cont est the present suit is allowed to be given for the purpose of deciding the disp ute between the parties effectively and completely and hence, the written statem ent filed by the present petitioner on 25th June, 2010 needs to be accepted, how ever, on payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- by the present petitioner to the respon dents. Order accordingly. The said costs shall be deposited before the Court bel ow on the date fixed by this court for appearance. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 19th August, 2013, who shall keeping in mind th e year of institution of the suit, i.e. 2005, made an endeavour to decide the sa id suit and in any case within 6(six) months from the date of appearance. The revision petition is accordingly allowed, as indicated above with cost of Rs .20,000/-. The Registry is directed to send down the records, so as to reach the Court belo w before 19th August, 2013.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: est the present suit is allowed to be given for the purpose of deciding the disp
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 10.
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.