Remanded

Lila Kurmi and 2 Ors. v. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd.

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2019CRP(I/O)/72/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble the Gauhati High Court interfered with the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's petition under Section 151 CPC to file defence evidence. The Court allowed the petitioner to submit evidence but imposed a cost due to her delay in filing it.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to submit defence evidence on affidavit; cost of Rs.10,000 imposed on the petitioner.

Lila Kurmi and 2 Ors. Vs Jayashree Tea and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010054292019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 72/2019

¶5

1:LILA KURMI AND 2 ORS.

¶6

WIFE OF MOHAN LAL KURMI, R/O. LABAK BAZAR, LABAK TEA ESTATE, P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR, PIN- 788103, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM.

¶7

2: AMBIKA KURMI SON OF MOHAN LAL KURMI R/O. LABAK BAZAR LABAK TEA ESTATE P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR PIN- 788103 DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM.

¶8

3: BIOPLAB KURMI SON OF MOHAN LAL KURMI R/O. LABAK BAZAR LABAK TEA ESTATE P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR PIN- 788103 DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:JAYASHREE TEA AND INDUSTRIES LTD.

¶11

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT INDUSTRY HOUSE, 15TH FLOOR, 10 CAMAC STREET, KOLKATA-700017. LOCAL OFFICE AT- DEWAN GROUP OF TEA ESTATES, P.O. DEWAN, PIN- 788102, P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST.CACHAR, ASSAM.

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S D PURKAYASTHA

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR G N SAHEWALLA

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 09-09-2019

¶18

Heard Mr. S.D. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

¶19

By the order dated 21.07.2017, the date for evidence by the defence witness was fixed on 03.08.2017. As 03.08.2017 was a holiday, the records were put up on 04.08.2017, but the defence evidence was not filed. The next dates fixed were 10.08.2017, 18.08.2017, 22.09.2017, 22.10.2017 and 10.11.2017 on which dates also, the defence evidence was not filed. We have taken note of that by the order dated 22.09.2017, a cost of Rs.200/- was imposed and by the order dated 20.10.2017, a further cost of Rs.300/- was imposed making it a total of Rs.500/-. From 10.11.2017 upto 21.04.2018, the Presiding Officer was on leave. But again the reason that the Presiding Officer was on leave could not have prevented the defendant from filing their evidence on affidavit. Be that as it may, no evidence on affidavit was filed. By the order dated 24.05.2018 as the defendants had sought for more than three adjournments, their evidence was closed. On 08.06.2018 a Petition bearing No.147 was filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 CPC praying for an opportunity to produce the evidence. For some reason, the said petition was not given consideration for many number of dates. Ultimately by the order dated 07.12.2018, the Petition No.147 filed on 08.06.2018 was given its consideration. In the order of 07.12.2018, the learned Munsiff, Lakhipur, Cachar was of the view that the defendant had failed to submit their evidence on 03.08.2017, 18.08.2017, 22.09.2017, 10.11.2017, 28.12.2017, 03.02.2018, 08.03.2018, 21.04.2018 and 24.05.2018.

¶20

The petitioner defendant on the other hand took the stand that she was ill during the period when she was required to file defence evidence and for the purpose produced certain medical documents which shows that she had a major abdominal operation during the period for which she was also advised bed rest for one month.

¶21

Page No.# 3/3

¶22

We have taken note of that the learned Munsiff had not at all taken into consideration the medical document submitted by the petitioner/defendant and on the other hand merely relied upon the aforementioned dates on which according to the learned Munsiff the petitioner had not filed their defence evidence. But further at the same time, we also cannot ignore the aspect that if the operation had taken place sometime in August 2017 with bed rest of one month why the defence evidence could not have been filed atleast subsequent to it.

¶23

Considering all the aforesaid circumstances we are of the view that partly the learned Munsiff was incorrect in not taking all the circumstances into account and secondly, it cannot be accepted that all the dates mentioned in the order dated 07.12.2018, the defendant had failed to submit their evidence on affidavit, inasmuch as, out of the said dates on many occasions, it was the Presiding Officer who was on leave. Considering the entire aspect and also in the interest of justice we interfere with the order dated 07.12.2018 in Misc Case No.05/2018 in T.S. No.76/2009 and allow the defendant to submit their defence evidence on affidavit on or before the date to be fixed in this order. Further because of the conduct of the petitioner/defendant in not filing the evidence on affidavit as required under law, we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner/defendant to be paid to the plaintiff on or before the next date fixed.

¶24

The parties to appear before the learned Munsiff on 30.09.2019. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶25

Revision petition stands disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Lila Kurmi and 2 Ors. v. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lila Kurmi and 2 Ors. v. Jayashree Tea and Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Adharshilla and Anr. Vs Arun Ch. Choudhury and Anr.

Smt. Nirupama Saikia Vs Smt. Tapashi Sarkar and 24 Ors.

Smt. Nirupama Saikia Vs Smt. Tapashi Sarkar and 24 Ors.

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Balipara Singidoloni Janajati L.P. School and 2 Ors.

The State of Assam and Anr. Vs Sri Hiranya Kr Deka and Anr.

Rinki Naha Nandi Vs Chiranjit Nandi