Allowed

Sabita Devi v. Golaghat Municipal Board and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2020CRP(I/O)/125/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order rejecting a prayer for adjournment to adduce evidence in a title suit. The Court allowed the petitioner a last chance to appear and produce evidence, warning that failure to do so would result in evidence being struck off.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16-12-2017 was set aside; the petitioner was directed to appear on 24-06-2020 and granted 30 days to adduce evidence.

Sabita Devi Vs Golaghat Municipal Board and 3 Ors. — Property and Title | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010081642018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 125/2018

¶5

1:SABITA DEVI

¶6

WIFE OF SRI PANKAJ SHARMA, RESIDENT OF BAGICHA ALI, WARD NO. 11, P.O. GOLAGHAT, P.S. GOLAGHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN785621

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:GOLAGHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOLAGHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD, P.O. GOLAGHAT, P.S. GOLAGHAT, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785621

¶10

2:CHAIRMAN GOLAGHAT MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621

¶11

3:DIGANTA NATH SON OF SRI NABIN NATH RESIDENT OF CHANDAN NAGAR WARD NO. 13 P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621

¶12

4:HEMANGA NATH SON OF SRI NABIN NATH

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

RESIDENT OF CHANDAN NAGAR WARD NO. 13 P.O. GOLAGHAT P.S. GOLAGHAT DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 78562

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 01-06-2020

¶20

Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents though served.

¶21

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-12-2017 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat in Title Suit No. 17/2015 rejecting the prayer for adjournment made by the petitioner/ plaintiff for adducing evidence thereby closing the plaintiff’s evidence. The learned Munsiff was of the view that despite sufficient adjournments granted to the plaintiff/ petitioner to adduce evidence, she has failed to do so, as a result of which, no further opportunity was required to be granted to her in this case.

¶22

By referring to the documents available on record, Mr. Dutta submits that during the relevant period of time, the plaintiff’s husband was suffering from some serious ailments,

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

as a result of which, she had to accompany him to Guwahati for medical treatment. As such, there was communication gap with her counsel, resulting into default on her part on the above aspect of the matter. It is also the submission of Mr. Dutta that the plaintiff was unaware of the said development until such time, a new counsel was engaged, who had gone through the records and thereafter, informed her about the impugned order.

¶25

It is apparent from the impugned order that the plaintiff had availed a number of adjournments for filing evidence but despite such prayer having been allowed by the learned Trial Court, she had failed to adduce evidence. As such, the impugned order dated 16-12-2017 cannot be held to be unjustified. However, the respondents have not appeared in this case. Therefore, the explanation furnished by the plaintiff in this case, in the absence of any rebuttal from the respondents, would have to be accepted as correct by this Court. If that be so and considering the fact that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit, I am of the view that she deserves one last opportunity to adduce her evidence.

¶26

For the above reason the impugned order dated 16-12-2017 is hereby set aside.

¶27

The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat on 24-062020 and produce a certified copy of this order. Since the respondents have not appeared

¶28

in this case, the learned Munsiff would fix a date for appearance of the defendant/ respondents in the title suit by issuing proper notice. The plaintiff would thereafter be granted 30 days time to adduce evidence.

¶29

It is made clear that if the plaintiff, for any reason whatsoever, fails to adduce her evidence within the time frame fixed by the learned court below, her right to adduce

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

evidence in the title suit shall stands “struck off” and the consequences thereof under the

¶32

law shall ensue with immediate effect.

¶33

With the above observation this revision petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE GS

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Sabita Devi v. Golaghat Municipal Board and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabita Devi v. Golaghat Municipal Board and 3 Ors.

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

Ajijur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Rohitash Kumar Jat @ Rohitash Jat Vs the State of Assam

Babul Lahon Vs State of Assam

Davraj Dutta Vs Smti. Alaka Goswami @ Aruna @ Alaka Bordoloi

The Iffko-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smti. Nibha Devi and 2 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Musstt. Mina Begum and 2 Ors.