Disposed¶42

Sandip Kumar Kundu v. Anupa Kundu

Calcutta HC19 May 2025CO/3629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order IX Rules 3, 4, 8 and 9, Code of Civil Procedure 1908; dismissal for default where neither party appears; fresh suit permitted after Rule 3 dismissal; Rule 9 bar on fresh suit inapplicable; matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage; Alipore; appellate correction of Trial Court's reliance on 1969 AIR SC 971; judgment set aside and remanded; FA 127 of 2023 with CO 3629 of 2023; decided 19.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order dated 29th May, 2023 set aside; matter remanded to the said Trial Court to deal afresh with the lis; respondent's written statement already filed and she is at liberty to take further steps in accordance with law; Trial Court observed to proceed expeditiously without unnecessary delay; CO 3629 of 2023 dismissed as not pressed. ¶42

Sandip Kumar Kundu Vs Anupa Kundu — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Under which provision of Order IX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Rule 3 (neither party appears) or Rule 8 (defendant only appears) — was the earlier matrimonial suit, Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011, dismissed? +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

From the undisputed order-sheet, the earlier suit Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011 was dismissed because of the absence of both parties — no steps taken by the petitioner/husband (orders No. 14 of 04.12.2013 and No. 15 of 19.03.2014) and summons never served on the respondent/wife.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

As neither party appeared when Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011 was called on for hearing, its dismissal falls under Order IX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶13

Key takeaways

Because the dismissal was under Order IX Rule 3, the appellant/husband had the alternative of seeking restoration or filing a fresh suit; the fresh suit he initiated is not barred under the Code.ratio¶13
On that conclusion, the impugned judgment and order deserved to be interfered with.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court at Calcutta, Appellate Side — FA 127 of 2023 (with CO 3629 of 2023), decided 19.05.2025 (Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.). Appeal by the husband (Sandip Kumar Kundu) against dismissal (29.05.2023, Additional District Judge, 12th Court, Alipore) of his second matrimonial suit seeking dissolution of marriage. His first suit, Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011, had been dismissed for default when neither party appeared — order No. 14 (04.12.2013) directed the petitioner to show cause, order No. 15 (19.03.2014) dismissed the suit for default, and summons had not been served on the wife — i.e., an Order IX Rule 3 CPC dismissal, under which the plaintiff may bring a fresh suit (Order IX Rule 4). The Trial Court, relying on 1969 AIR SC 971, had treated the dismissal as under Order IX Rule 8 and invoked the Order IX Rule 9 bar on a fresh suit on the same cause of action. This Court held the dismissal was under Order IX Rule 3, that the fresh suit was therefore not barred, set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to deal afresh; the respondent's written statement was already on file and expeditious progress was urged; CO 3629 of 2023 was dismissed as not pressed.

¶1

Item Nos.- 6-7 19.05.2025 Rohan Court No. 4

¶2

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶3

FA 127 of 2023

¶4

Sandip Kumar Kundu Versus Anupa Kundu

¶5

with

¶6

CO 3629 of 2023

¶7

Sandip Kumar Kundu Versus Anupa Kundu (ASSIGNED)

¶8

Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv, Mr. Avirup Mondal, Mrs. Ahana Ghosh Mondal, Mr. Debdipta Sen.

¶9

… for the appellant

¶10

Mr. Saumyen Datta, Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya, Ms. Rusha Mukherjee.

¶11

… for the respondent

¶12

The present appeal has been initiated assailing the order and judgment dated 29^th May, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 12^th Court, Alipore, whereby, the learned Judge has been pleased to dismiss the suit on contest without cost.

¶13

The present lis involves matrimonial dispute.

¶14

The husband had earlier initiated a Matrimonial Suit being No. 1162 of 2011 before the Ld. District Judge at Alipore which was eventually dismissed.

¶15

Thereafter the husband once again filed a fresh matrimonial suit which has also been dismissed

¶16

¶17

through the impugned judgment which is the bone of contention in this present appeal.

¶18

The learned counsel representing the appellant/husband submits that the dismissal of the earlier matrimonial suit being Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011 was under Order IX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and being dismissed under Order IX Rule 3, the appellant/ husband had the choice to apply for restoration subject to limitation or had the liberty to file a fresh suit. Taking the second option, the appellant/husband preferred to file a fresh suit, as, there is no bar to prefer a fresh suit under Order IX Rule 4 of the said Code. As such the impugned judgment is not in accordance with law.

¶19

He further submits that in the earlier matrimonial suit the respondent/wife had not appeared and the petitioner husband was initially directed to show cause as none had represented him and eventually on the very next date as neither anybody had represented the husband nor any cause was shown and filed so the Ld. Court has eventually dismissed the suit for nonappearance. This being the scenario that ultimately the suit was dismissed and that being for non-appearance and there being non-representation of either of the parties so the earlier suit had been dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 of the said Code.

¶20

In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Amiruddin Ansari (Dead) Through Lrs and others vs. Afajal Ali and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 912 and has relied upon paragraph 21 of the said judgment.

¶21

¶22

Per contra the learned counsel representing the respondent has placed that the appellant was barred from initiating a fresh suit seeking dissolution of the marriage when the earlier application seeking dissolution of marriage was dismissed and in addition to that, the appellant/husband had not revealed before the Trial Court as regards to the dismissal of the earlier matrimonial suit. Thus, the learned counsel representing the respondent/wife raised the issue that the appellant/husband was barred from initiating a fresh application seeking dissolution of the marriage under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as because the earlier matrimonial suit has been dismissed under Order IX Rule 8 of the said Code.

¶23

In support of his contention, the learned counsel has mentioned that non-revealing of the earlier suit being dismissed by the Trial Court in the later suit estops the said husband from filing the second suit seeking divorce. He further submits that filing of the second suit in the circumstances would invite fatal consequence.

¶24

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned Trial Court has relied upon a judgment published in 1969 AIR SC 971 and has stated that the dismissal of the earlier application seeking dissolution of the marriage was under Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as such, Order IX Rule 9 comes into effect which precludes the appellant/husband from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action.

¶25

From the ordersheet of the matrimonial suit being Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011, it transpires that the earlier suit was dismissed as because no steps were taken on behalf of the petitioner/husband and at that relevant

¶26

¶27

point of time, there was no question of representation of the respondent/wife as because summon was not served upon her till that point of time. A copy of the order-sheet has been placed on behalf of the appellant/husband, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing the respondent/wife. From the order No. 14 dated 4^th December, 2013 in respect of Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011, it transpires that the petitioner was directed to show-cause as because no step was taken on behalf of the petitioner/husband and subsequently, vide order No. 15 dated 19^th March, 2014, the said matrimonial suit was dismissed for default as because no step was taken on behalf of the petitioner/husband. This being the position, it is clear that the earlier suit being Mat Suit No. 1162 of 2011 was dismissed as because of absence of both the parties.

¶28

In this context Order IX Rule 3 with Order IX Rule 4 and Order IX Rule 8 with Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are layed:

¶29

“ Order IX Rule 3-

¶30

3. Where neither party appears, suit to be dismissed. - Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed.

¶31

Order IX Rule 4-

¶32

4. Plaintiff may bring fresh suit or Court may restore suit to file. - Where a suit is dismissed under rule 2 or rule 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit; or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for [such failure as is referred to in rule 2], or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

¶33

¶34

Order IX Rule 8-

¶35

8. Procedure where defendant only appears. - Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.

¶36

Order IX Rule 9-

¶37

9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit. –(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

¶38

(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.”

¶39

On perusal of Order IX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it transpires that when neither of the parties appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed, which has taken place in the Matrimonial Suit No.1162 of 2011 filed earlier. In consequent to which, the appellant/husband had the alternative either to seek for restoration of the suit seeking dissolution of marriage or to initiate a fresh suit and in this instant appeal, the husband took the later step, i.e., initiated a fresh suit, which is not barred under the said Code.

¶40

¶41

Having come to such conclusion, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be interfered with.

¶42

The judgment and order dated 29^th May, 2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said Trial Court to deal afresh as regards to the lis .

¶43

With the above observation, FA 127 of 2023 is disposed of .

¶44

CO 3629 of 2023 is dismissed as not pressed .

¶45

On behalf of the respondent/wife, it has been mentioned that written statement has already been filed and the respondent is at liberty to take further steps in accordance with law.

¶46

A prayer has been made that the suit may be disposed of expeditiously since the issue has now been pending for some time.

¶47

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are issues regarding huge amount being pending as alimony.

¶48

Without going into the merits of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent and in view of the admitted position that the parties will not take any unnecessary adjournments, we would only observe that the Court may proceed expeditiously and without any unnecessary delay.

¶49

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶50

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Sandip Kumar Kundu v. Anupa Kundu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Kumar Kundu v. Anupa Kundu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subodh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Das Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Malina Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jayanta Sarkar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kalpana Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sandip Kumar Kundu Vs Anupa Kundu