Allowed

M/S Aadhar v. Ajit Deb and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Feb 2023CRP(IO)/29/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition sought to set aside an order rejecting a written statement filed late due to the 90-day CPC period expiry. The court allowed the revision and directed the defendant to file the written statement immediately.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to file the written statement before the trial court on 04.02.2023 and ordered the trial court to accept it and proceed with the suit.

M/S Aadhar Vs Ajit Deb and 2 Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010270632022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/29/2023

¶5

M/S AADHAR

¶6

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT PIYALI PHUKAN ROAD, NAWRAM KAKATI PATH, REHABARI, GHY, P.O- REHABARI, P.SPALTAN BAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781008 HEREIN REP. BY ITS PARTNER PURNASHREE DAS, W/O- JYOTI PRAKASH DAS, R/OREHABARI, GUWAHATI, P.O- REHABARI, P.S- PALTAN BAZAR, DISTKAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781008

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

AJIT DEB AND 2 ORS S/O- LATE KAMADA RANJAN DEB, R/O- C/O- RUMA PYNE, S C ROAD, KUMARPARA, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781001

¶9

2:RITA PYNE W/O- SRI AJIT DEB R/O- C/O- RUMA PYNE S C ROAD KUMARPARA GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781001

¶10

3:LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND A GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE SITUATED AT YOGAKSHEMA BUILDING JEEVAN BIMA MARG P.O- BOX NO. 19956 MUMBAI- 400021 AND ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT JEEVAN PRAKASH SS ROAD

¶11

Page No.# 2/3

¶12

FANCY BAZAR GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 78100

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K JAIN

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B D DEKA

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R

¶17

03. 02. 2023

¶18

Heard Mr. BK Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the caveator.

¶19

The present petition is filed for setting aside the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M) in TS 413/2022, whereby the prayer of the petitioner herein (defendant No. 1) to submit written statement was rejected on the ground that the period of 90 days in filing the written statement prescribed under proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC, was over

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.12.2022, the defendant No. 1 was ready with his written statement however, the same was not accepted.

¶21

As the petitioner has already prepared the written statement and same is ready, if the same is allowed to be filed, the plaintiff will not be prejudiced inasmuch as the next date of the suit is fixed for SBPH on 04.02.2023.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

In that view of the matter, the present revision petition is allowed directing the defendant No. 1 to file the written statement tomorrow (04.02.2023) before the learned trial court below and on such filing of the written statement, the learned court below shall accept the same and proceed in the suit. However, if such written statement is not filed tomorrow, the learned trial court below shall proceed for SBPH.

¶24

In the aforesaid term, this revision petition is disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

M/S Aadhar v. Ajit Deb and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aadhar v. Ajit Deb and 2 Ors.

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

Smt Gitali Lahkar and 3 Ors. Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 2 Ors. Vs Archana Das

Haren Kalita Vs Sunil Kalita

Arpana Devi, Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Anowaruddin Wakf Estate Vs Sri Bipin Dey and 3 Ors.

Md.Majid Vs Wahida Begum and Anr.