Allowed

Sanjeeb Rava @ Sonjib Rabha v. Rukmini Sahu and Anr.

Gauhati HC9 Jan 2020CRP(I/O)/315/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court modified an impugned order by the learned Munsiff that closed the petitioner's opportunity to file documents. While noting the trial court's decision to reject a new counsel without vakalat was justified and multiple adjournments were misused, the High Court granted one last chance to file documents on a fixed date for ends of justice; failure t

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.06.2019 modified to grant one last opportunity to file documents on 05.02.2020; failure to do so lapses the opportunity.

Sanjeeb Rava @ Sonjib Rabha Vs Rukmini Sahu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010231632019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 315/2019

¶5

1:SANJEEB RAVA @ SONJIB RABHA S/O- SRI MALIRAM RABHA, R/O- ROWDUAR GAOM, P.O- NUMALIGARH, P.S- BOKAKHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785615

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:RUKMINI SAHU AND ANR

¶8

W/O- LATE INDRADEV TELI, R/O- ROWDUAR GAON, P.O- NUMALIGARH, P.S-BOKAKHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785615

¶9

2:BELA TELI W/O- LATE SIVA PRASAD TELI R/O- ROWDUAR GAON P.O- NUMALIGARH P.S- BOKAKHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 78561

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K SAHU (R1)

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 09.01.2020

¶15

Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1. None appears on call for the respondent No.2.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bokakhat in TS 5/2018, by which the learned trial Court closed the opportunity to the petitioner/ defendant time to file documents. By closing the opportunity to file documents, the issues were framed in the suit.

¶18

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that in the meanwhile, the plaintiff’s evidence has been filed and the case is fixed for cross-examination of PW-1.

¶19

It is seen that on 06.06.2019, petition for adjournment was filed on the ground that the documents could not be submitted as it was given to the Bokakhat Revenue Circle for correction. However, as the said petition was filed by a fresh set of counsel without vakalatnama, despite the statement made to the effect that vakalatnama will be filed on the next date, the learned trial Court took an exception of filing of the adjournment petition not supported by any vakalatnama.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having regard to the reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 06.06.2019, although no fault is found with the order passed by the learned trial Court because the learned trial Court is not at fault at not recognizing the new set of counsel without vakalatnama because unless the vakalatnama is filed, the counsel cannot be the authorized representative of the parties. Moreover, as the petitioner is found to have taken four adjournments for filing documents, rejection of the prayer for adjournment is also found to be justified in view of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A (1) CPC. However, for ends of justice and to prevent prejudice to the petitioner herein, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file his documents on the next date of appearance as fixed by this Court.

¶21

It is made clear that if the requisite documents are not filed on the next date fixed, the opportunity granted for filing documents by this Court shall stands lapsed without any further order from the Court and it would be open to the learned trial Court to proceed from the stage in which the suit is already fixed.

¶22

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bokakhat in TS 5/2018 stands modified to the effect as indicated above.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

Both sides, who are duly represented by their respective learned counsel shall appear before the Court of learned Munsiff, Bokakhat on 05.02.2020 and on the said date, the petitioner by producing a certified copy of this order shall file all documents on which they intend to rely, failing which the opportunity would stands lapsed as indicated hereinbefore.

¶25

Petition stands allowed.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Sanjeeb Rava @ Sonjib Rabha v. Rukmini Sahu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeeb Rava @ Sonjib Rabha v. Rukmini Sahu and Anr.

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

Anami Rabha Vs Fukanta Rabha and 3 Ors.

Ananda Gogoi Vs Rebot Kumar Borgohain

Himadri Sankar Dutta and 3 Ors. Vs Rekha Paul and 9 Ors.

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

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

Ajay Agarwalla Vs Mirza Ahmed @ Mirza Bagom @ Mary Nessa and 2 Ors.