Sarat Kalita and 3 Ors. v. Gobinda Baishya and 4 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Gauhati High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226, held that the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by returning the petitioner's written statement. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to accept the written statement filed against the amended plaint.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order dated 25.04.2017 set aside; trial court directed to accept and put on record the written statement filed by the petitioners.
What the court decided
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010270252017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(I/O) 84/2017
1:SARAT KALITA and 3 ORS.
2: JITEN KALITA
3: RABIN KALITA
4: MANI KALITA ALL ARE SONS OF LT. ARABINDA KALITA R/O. VILL. PUB SITARA MOUZA PANDURI P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354
VERSUS
1:GOBINDA BAISHYA and 4 ORS.
2:GOPAL BAISHYA BOTH ARE SONS OF LT. PHANIRAM BAISHYA R/O. RANGIA TOWN TATIPARA WARD NO. 7 MOUZA PANDURI P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUPASSAM PIN-781354.
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RANGIA REVENUE CIRCLE RANGIA
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the right to file a written statement against an amended plaint accrues after the amendment is allowed.
Whether an ex-parte order proceeding against defendants remains valid after amendment of the plaint allowing additional time for written statement.
Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error in returning the written statement filed against the amended plaint.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sarat Kalita and 3 Ors.
- petitioner
Jiten Kalita
- petitioner
Rabin Kalita
- petitioner
Mani Kalita
- respondent
Gobinda Baishya and 4 Ors.
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Gauhati HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP(IO)/84/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court