Allowed

Libo Ragmuk v. Yapi Ragmuk

Gauhati HC20 Jul 2022CRP/24/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It set aside ex-parte orders and a judgment from the District & Session Judge, Arunachal Pradesh, and remanded the matrimonial title suit for further proceedings due to Covid-19 related delays and lack of notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders and ex-parte judgment were set aside, and the matrimonial suit was remanded to the lower court for filing a written statement.

Libo Ragmuk Vs Yapi Ragmuk — Matrimonial and Divorce | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC040009622020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP 24/2020

¶5

1:Libo Ragmuk

¶6

S/O SHRI TADUK RAGMUK, A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TATO, PO/PS TATO, SHI -YOMI DISTRICT, AP.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:Yapi Ragmuk

¶9

W/O SHRI LIBO RAGMUK, A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TATO, PO/PS TATO, SHI YOMI DISTRICT, AP.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : Kemo Lollen

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : T T Tara

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 20-07-2022

¶16

Heard Mr. Kemo Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Jumgam Jini, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

¶17

2] This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the

¶18

Civil Procedure Code, against the order in the 2 (two) Miscellaneous applications in Misc. Case No.07/2020 and Misc. Case No.08/2020 dated 26.11.202 arising out of Matrimonial Title Suit

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

(Conjugal Right) No.02/2020 and for setting aside the impugned ex-parte Order dated 02.07.2020and the ex-parte Judgment & Order dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned District & Session Judge, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh in Matrimonial Title Suit (Conjugal Right) No.02/2020, where the Court had directed the petitioner to the re-unite with the respondent.

¶21

3] Mr. Kemo Lollen, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 26.11.2020 in Misc. Case No. 07/2020 and the impugned Ex-parte Order dated 02.07.2020 may be set aside on the grounds that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, he was unable to travel to Aalo when summon notice was received on 01.03.2020due to the National pandemic, but he had gone to the Court on the date fixed on 24.03.2020 however he found that the court was closed. He was not aware how the main case, Title Suit (Conjugal Right) No.02/2020 had proceeded ex-parte on 24.03.2020. Further, the second notice was not received by his mother as noted by the learned Trial Court, but was received by his sister, who was married and residing elsewhere and therefore, he was not informed and was un-aware that a next date was fixed for hearing on 02.07.2020. He came to know of the impugned ex-parte Order dated 02.07.2020 in Title Suit (Conjugal Right) No.02/2020 only on 07.11.2020, wherein there was a delay of 4 (four) months 10 (ten) days in filing the Misc. Application No.08/2020 for condonation of delay and Misc. Application No.07/2020 for vacating the ex-parte proceeding passed by the Court on 02.07.2020. Both the Misc. applications were filed on 13.11.2020.He submits that he could not travel from Tato village to Aalo Town to meet/engage a counsel due to the National Lockdown due to Covid-19 Pandemic and got to know of the ex-parte Order dated 02.07.2020 only on 7.11.2020, after the National Lockdown was lifted. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 In Re:Cognizance for Extention of Limitation which is fairly applicable in the present case the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 in Misc Case No. 07/2020 & Misc. Case No. 08/2020 may be set aside and subsequently the order dated 02.07.2020 and the Judgment &

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

Order dated 26.11.2020 be set aside and that the Matrimonial Title Suit (Conjugal Right)No.02/2020 be remanded back to the learned Court below and the petitioner may be allowed to file his written statement in the matter.

¶24

4] Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submits that there is no ground for setting aside the order passed by the learned District & Session Judge dated 02.07.2020 since it is clear that the present petitioner had received notice on 01.03.2020 and therefore when he has come to the court premises on 24.03.2020, even if the court was closed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, he had ample time to engage a counsel on his behalf and submit his written statement.

¶25

5] The learned counsel, further submits that the petitioner was not interest and taking any steps for the last several months and has come to this court and submitted the Misc. Application No.07/2020and Misc. Application No.07/2020belatedly on 13.11.2020, for setting aside the ex-parte Order dated 02.07.2020 which should not be considered. The learned District and Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the Misc. Applications and held that the reasons given by him that the delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic, is not a sufficient ground. The learned counsel for the respondent thus prayed that this instant petition may be dismissed.

¶26

6] Having heard the submissions made by the counsels for both the parties, I find that the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 In Re:Cognizance for Extention of Limitation, in its order dated 10.01.2020,held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect to all judicial proceedings. In the instant Misc. Application No.08/2020 the period for condonation of delay is sought from 02.07.2020 to 13.11.2020, which fairly comes within the period of to be excluded for the period of limitation as held above by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is also seen that the Court had issued summons to the said petitioner when the Covid-19 pandemic was in its peak, wherein, movement and

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

travel to different districts were difficult and delayed. It also goes without saying, that during this period the Court’s would not be functioning as usual. The petitioner has submitted that on receiving the summon on 01.03.2020 he had come to the Court on 24.03.2020, but the Court was closed. He thus had no knowledge of the second summon wherein the date for hearing was fixed on 02.07.2020, that he did not receive the second summon since it was received by his married sister who is residing elsewhere and he was not informed.

¶29

7] I find the above explanation plausible considering the various lockdowns and restrictions issued during the peak Covid-19. Pandemic period wherein the courts were also functioning through virtual mode, and that the petitioner was residing at Tato village while the court was in Aalo town.

¶30

8] In view of the above observations this court find it fit and appropriate and in the interest of justice to set aside the orders dated 26.11.2020 passed by the learned District & Session Judge in Misc. Applications No.07/2020 and Misc. Applications No.08/2020 and subsequently set aside the ex-parte order dated 02.07.2020 and also the ex-parte Judgment & Order dated 26.11.2020 in Matrimonial Title Suit (Conjugal Right) No.02/2020 passed by the learned District & Session Judge, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶31

9] Accordingly, the case, Matrimonial Title Suit (Conjugal Right) No.02/2020, is the remanded back to the learned Court of District & Sessions Judge, Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh for allowing the present petition to submit his written statement and the matter may be decided after giving due hearing to both the parties.

¶32

10] CRP No.24 of 2020 (AP) stands allowed and disposed of.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Libo Ragmuk v. Yapi Ragmuk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Libo Ragmuk v. Yapi Ragmuk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabam Kojum Vs the State of Ap

The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and 3 Ors. Vs Larbin Nasi and 2 Ors.

Onyang Chije (Angu) Vs the State of Ap and Anr.

Motu Riram and Anr. Vs Karyom Riram

Lhousakuolie Metha Vs the State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Patel Engineering Limited and 4 Ors. Vs Md. Rafijul Haque