Disposed

Dinesh Shahu and Anr. v. Sita Devi @ Geeta Devi

Gauhati HC10 Jan 2020CRP(I/O)/2/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Article 226/227, the Gauhati High Court directed the trial court to strictly comply with a prior order mandating substituted service via newspaper publication for a pro forma defendant and limited further adjournments to the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to comply with the order dated 17.03.2017 and expedite the suit via substituted service and limited adjournments.

Dinesh Shahu and Anr. Vs Sita Devi @ Geeta Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010317542019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 2/2020

¶5

1:DINESH SHAHU AND ANR.

¶6

S/O- LATE KUNJA BIHARI SHAHU, R/O- MANDOLI, MAUZA- LANKA, P.OKARIKHANA, NAGAON

¶7

2: BINOD KUMAR GUPTA S/O- SRI KAMAKHYA PRASAD GUPTA R/O- VILL- BORLONGPHAR MAUZA- LUMDING DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 78244

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:SITA DEVI @ GEETA DEVI D/O- LATE DEOSHARAN RAM, R/O- KHANGARGAON, MAUZALUMDING,P.O AND P.S- LUMDING, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K BARKATAKI

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 10-01-2020

¶16

Heard Mr. S.K. Borkataki, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶17

By this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner have challenged a series of order passed by the learned Munsiff, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in T.S.

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

49/2014 starting from order dated 13.09.2018 onwards.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the suit has been dragging from the year 2014 and despite serious objections raised by them, the Court has continued to grant adjournment at the drop of the hat for which the petitioners/ defendants No.1 and 2 are suffering prejudice and untold harassment because of the delay.

¶21

It is submitted that by repetitive adjournment of the suit, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CRP(I/O) 29/2017 and this Court by order dated 17.03.2017 had passed the following order:

¶22

“Heard Mr. S.K. Borkataki, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

By filing this application under section 227 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner has raised the grievance that although the suit was filed in the year 2014, but the plaintiff did not take timely steps for issuance of notice on the proforma defendant, for which the suit is still awaiting service of summons on the defendants.

¶24

It is projected that on two occasions, fine has been imposed on the plaintiff for causing delay and the learned Munsiff, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar. By order dated 14.12.2016, the learned Court below had allowed the plaintiff’s side “an extreme last chance to take steps upon the remaining defendants” and also imposed a cost of Rs.700/- for causing the delay, but the plaintiff’s side again failed to take steps and the requisite steps was deposited before the Court only on 25.01.2017.

¶25

As for almost 3 years the service on the defendants is not completed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner, who has entered appearance in the suit as defendant No.1, is suffering prejudice because of delay.

¶26

In view of the nature of order proposed to be passed in the present application, issuance of notice on the respondent is dispensed with.

¶27

On due consideration of the matter as projected, the Trial Court is directed to take recourse to the provisions of Sub-rule 1-A of Rule 20 of Order V, by directing the plaintiff to take recourse for substituted service of summons by publishing the same in one Assamese and one English daily newspaper having wide circulation in the district of Nagaon to ensure service on proforma defendant, which would expedite the proceeding of T.S. No.49/2014.

¶28

The revision petition stands disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this order before the learned trial Court to enable the said Court to do the needful in accordance with law.”

¶29

It is submitted that despite producing the said order before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court had further adjourned the suit from time to time and despite a long period of almost 3 years more has passed, there is no progress of the suit because of the repetitive adjournment allowed by the learned trial Court. The Court is dismayed at the non-compliance of the order dated 17.03.2017 passed in this Court in CRP(I/O) 79/2017. It appears that the learned Munsiff, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai has disregarded the said order. Under such circumstances, the learned Munsiff, Hojai at Sankardev Nagar is once again directed to strictly

¶30

Page No.# 3/3

¶31

comply with the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by this Court in CRP(I/O) 29/2017, failing which the matter shall be dealt with firmly by the Court for showing disregard to the orders passed by this Court.

¶32

Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of without issuance of notice on the respondent.

¶33

Liberty is granted to the petitioners to produce a certified copy of the order before the learned Munsiff, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai so as to enable the said learned Court to pass appropriate order in terms of order dated 17.03.2017 passed by this Court in CRP (I/O) 29/2017.

¶34

It is hoped that this time the said learned Court shall comply with the directions as expeditiously as possible by limiting any further adjournment to the plaintiff in the suit.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Dinesh Shahu and Anr. v. Sita Devi @ Geeta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Shahu and Anr. v. Sita Devi @ Geeta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeeb Rava @ Sonjib Rabha Vs Rukmini Sahu and Anr.

Chandra Kanta Bordoloi and 10 Ors. Vs Santiram Pator and 12 Ors.

Sarat Kalita and 3 Ors. Vs Gobinda Baishya and 4 Ors.

Bangshilal Gupta Vs Subhash Gupta and 9 Ors.

Innas Ali Vs the Central Bank of India and Anr.

Subhash @ Subash Deb Nath Vs on Death of Bishnupada Saha His Legal Heirs - Archana Saha and Anr.