Allowed

Mayuri Gogoi v. Bornali Kalita and Anr.

Gauhati HC18 Feb 2024CRP(IO)/43/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside a trial court's order rejecting the defendant's prayer for time to file a written statement after the statutory 90-day period. The Court held the period is directory, not mandatory, and directed the petitioner to file the written statement within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to file written statement within 10 days.

Mayuri Gogoi Vs Bornali Kalita and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010014262024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/43/2024

¶5

MAYURI GOGOI W/O- SRI RAJEN GOGOI, R/O- VILL.- DA- HUKUTA, P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN, PIN- 786602, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

BORNALI KALITA AND ANR W/O- SRI JAYANTA DAS, R/O- EASTERN ENCLAVE-II, LAKHESWAR BARUAH PATH, MRD ROAD, NEW GUWAHATI, P.S. NOONMATI, GUWAHATI-20, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶8

2:JAYANTA DAS S/O- SRI THANESWAR DAS R/O- EASTERN ENCLAVE-II LAKHESWAR BARUAH PATH MRD ROAD NEW GUWAHATI P.S. NOONMATI GUWAHATI-20 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSA

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S G BARUAH

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶11

Page No.# 2/2

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

19-02-2024

¶15

Heard Ms. S. G. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶16

Seen the Office Note dated 16.02.2024, the respondents have refused to accept the notice therefore service of notice upon the respondents is complete.

¶17

This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in TS No. 387/2023 whereby the learned Trial Court rejected its prayer of the petitioner, who is the defendant before the Trial Court, for granting time to file a written statement. The said prayer was rejected because the statutory period of 90 days has already elapsed.

¶18

This Court gone through the impugned order.

¶19

It is a settled position of law that the period of 90 days as mentioned by Order VIII of the CPC is not a mandatory one rather it is a directory one.

¶20

I find that the leaned Trial Court failed to exercise judicial mind by passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside.

¶21

The petitioner is directed to file a written statement within next 10 days, which will be accepted by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter the Court shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.

¶22

The revision petition stands disposed of.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Mayuri Gogoi v. Bornali Kalita and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayuri Gogoi v. Bornali Kalita 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

Debakesh Malla Buzar Baruah, Vs Dipak Das and Anr.

Riajul Islam @ Riajul Hoque Vs the State of Assam

Baharul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Lalit Das Alias Lalit Chandra Das Vs Dipul Das

Tapan Saha Vs Gayatri Saha

Hiranya Kumar Sarma and Anr. Vs on the Death of Sole Plaintiff, Ramesh Barman and Ors.