Allowed

Ms. Banani Paul v. Gautam Sutradhar

Gauhati HC2 May 2024CRP(IO)/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Article 226 challenging an order rejecting a defendant's written statement in a title suit. Held that since the defendant was permitted to file the written statement in a record, the subsequent rejection was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.12.2023 set aside; respondent directed to accept the written statement and proceed with the suit.

Ms. Banani Paul Vs Gautam Sutradhar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010008572024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/31/2024

¶5

MS. BANANI PAUL

¶6

W/O SRI SHYAMAL CHANDRA PAUL, R/O HOUSE NO. 16, PULIN NIWAS, MILANPUR, REHABARI, GUWAHATI-781009, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

GAUTAM SUTRADHAR

¶9

S/O LATE TARAKNATH SUTRADHAR, R/O HARIJON BUNIADI VIDYALAYA, BYE-LANE, MARASHALI, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-7, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶10

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate

¶11

For the respondent (s) : Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, Advocate

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶14

03.05.2024

¶15

This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 passed in Title Suit No.370/2023 by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the written statement so submitted by the defendant was rejected on the ground that statutory period of 90 days had elapsed.

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

This Court has duly taken note of the order dated 06.11.2023 whereby the defendant was permitted to file the written statement on 11.12.2023. Accordingly on 11.12.203, the defendant filed the written statement. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said written statement on the ground that the summons were delivered to the defendant on 09.08.2013.

¶18

Taking into account that the defendant was duly permitted to file the written statement on 11.12.2023 which is a part of the record of Title Suit No.370/2023, in the opinion of this Court, the order dated 11.12.203 thereby rejecting the written statement was not called for.

¶19

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 is interfered with and thereby directing the learned Trial Court, i.e. the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati to accept the written statement filed by the defendant and then to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.

¶20

The order dated 29.02.2024 passed by this Court stands vacated and as the parties are duly represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 01.06.2024.

¶21

In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Ms. Banani Paul v. Gautam Sutradhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Banani Paul v. Gautam Sutradhar

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

Deben Das Vs the State of Assam

M/S Baghbari Tea Estate Vs State of Assam

M/S Baghbari Tea Estate Vs State of Assam

Niru Rani Das and Anr. Vs Sushen Das and Ors.

Arupananda Goswami and 3 Ors. Vs Mukundananda Deva Goswami @ Mukundananda Chandra Goswami and 6 Ors.

Dhinjoy Majhi Vs Tanua Majhi