Dibrugarh Hanumanbux Surajmal Kanoi Commerce College and Anr. Vs Nilima Gogoi and 14 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010272122018

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:6638

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : CRP/3/2019

¶6

DIBRUGARH HANUMANBUX SURAJMAL KANOI COMMERCE COLLEGE AND ANR. DIBRUGARH ESTB. AND CONSTITUTED UNDER DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY ACT 1965 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL AND SECY. DR. KHANINDRA MISRA BHAGAWATI DIBRUGARH HANUMANBUX SURAJMAL KANOI COMMERCE COLLEGE DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001

¶7

2: DR. KHANINDRA MISRA BHAGAWATI THE PRINCIPAL AND SECY. DIBRUGARH HANUMANBUX SURAJMAL KANOI COMMERCE COLLEGE DIBRUGARH DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001 VERSUS

¶8

NILIMA GOGOI AND 14 ORS. W/O- LT ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002

¶9

2:BARUN CHANDRA GOGOI S/O- MUKUT CHANDRA GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2

¶10

Page No.# 2/7

¶11

P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 3:MRS. ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI S/O- LT ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 4:SRI MADHYRJYA GOGOI S/O- LT ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 5:SRI PRANAB GOGOI S/O- LT BHAGYESWAR GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 6:SRI SUSIL SAIKIA S/O- MEGHNATH SAIKIA R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 7:SRI KAMAL CHANDRA GOGOI S/O- LT UMA KANTA GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002

¶12

Page No.# 3/7

¶13

8:TARUN GOGOI S/O- MUKTI GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 9:ARUN GOGOI S/O- LT DHAJEN GOGOI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 10:SRI BIPULL CHELLENG S/O- NOT KNOWN R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 11:SRI GIRINDRA NATH KONWAR S/O- SRI PABITRA KONWAR R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 12:HARINARAYAN KEOT S/O- SRI MAHABIR KEOT R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 13:SRI NARAYAN KEOT S/O- SRI MAHABIR KEOT

¶14

Page No.# 4/7

¶15

R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 14:SRI SUSIL SAIKIA S/O- SRI MEGHNATH SAIKIA R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 15:SMTI. OMEN MENTHOM DEORI W/O- LT TANKESWAR DEORI R/O- BANIPUR BYE LANE NO.2 P.O. BANIPUR P.S. AND DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 -----------Advocate for : MR N N UPADHYAYA Advocate for : MR. B P BORAH (R11) appearing for NILIMA GOGOI AND 14 ORS.

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

12/05/2026

¶20

Heard Mr. N. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 & 9.

¶21

2. There are 15 (fifteen) respondents, but though notice was served in a substituted manner by publication in a newspaper, none appeared on call for the remaining respondents.

¶22

Page No.# 5/7

¶23

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 37/2006. The learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, in its judgment dated 02.07.2009, mentioned that the summons to the defendants were served, but they did not appear to contest the proceedings and accordingly, the suit was proceeded ex parte against the defendants.

¶24

4. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos. 2 & 8, who are the respondent No. 1 in the instant revision, filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 02.07.2009, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 20/2013. However, the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, by an order dated 30.09.2014, rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. Accordingly, the respondents filed Misc. Appeal No. 04/2017 and the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, by the judgment and order dated 06.09.2018, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 04/2017, allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree and the suit was remanded back before the learned Trial Court for an expeditious disposal.

¶25

5. The petitioners (plaintiffs), being aggrieved by the said appellate judgment and order dated 06.09.2018, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 04/2017 by the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, have filed this revision application under Section 115 of the CPC.

¶26

6. In connection with the case of the respondent No. 1, who is the defendant No. 2 in the suit, the records reveal that the process server made five attempts to serve summons on the respondent No.1, but nobody could identify Nilima Gogoi (respondent No.1/defendant No.2) and the summons was published in a newspaper pursuant to order dated 13.08.2007.

¶27

Page No.# 6/7

¶28

7. On perusal of paragraph-8 of the appellate order, it appears that the nephew of the defendant had refused to accept summons and the serving officer was informed that the said defendant was residing at Bakul. Therefore, it is seen that the address in the plaint is not the address at which the respondent No. 1 was residing.

¶29

8. In respect of the summons sought to be served on Barun Chandra Gogoi, the respondent No. 2, i.e., the defendant No. 8 in the suit, the learned Appellate Court had given a finding that the process server had made five attempts to serve summons on the respondent No. 2, but he could not succeed and on three occasions, he had informed the Court that the defendant No. 8 had refused to accept service of summons. The said process server’s report is at page-124 and 125 of File-D of the Trial Court records. If there is a refusal on the part of the defendants to receive notice, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly referred to the provisions of Order V Rule 17 of the CPC with regard to the manner in which notice was required to be served by affixing.

¶30

9. Thus, by referring to the manner of service as provided under Order V Rule 17 of the CPC, the process server has also violated the provisions of Rule 65 of Chapter 3 of the Civil Court Rules and Orders of the Gauhati High Court.

¶31

10. Accordingly, as the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have disclosed their complete address in the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC in Misc.(J) No. 20/2013, the said address of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has not been disputed and it appears that by giving an incorrect address of the said respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the suit was filed, which resulted in an ex-parte decree.

¶32

11. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this revision petition. No

¶33

Page No.# 7/7

¶34

part of the order under challenge is illegal or perverse on any count. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

12. The Registry shall forthwith send back the records to the Court of learned District Judge, Dibrugarh to send it to the appropriate Trial Court for disposal.

¶36

13. As the matter has been remanded back to the learned Trial Court, the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall positively appear before the office of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dibrugarh on 15.06.2026, to obtain information as to the Court to which the matter has been transferred and shall take steps accordingly.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Dibrugarh Hanumanbux Surajmal Kanoi Commerce College and Anr. v. Nilima Gogoi and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dibrugarh Hanumanbux Surajmal Kanoi Commerce College and Anr. v. Nilima Gogoi and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shantana (Chakraborty) Bhattacharjee Vs Rajarshi Chakraborty

Fakruzzaman Laskar and 7 Ors. Vs Abdus Sukkur Choudhury and 3 Ors.

Sital Bardhan Vs Chand Mahammad Ali

Dibrugarh Hanumanbux Surajmal Kanoi Commerce College and Anr. Vs Tarun Chandra Gogoi and 14 Ors. (C)

Ashish Jalan Vs Mrs. Durga Das and Anr.

Horen Gogoi Vs Court of Competent Authority, Indradhanush Gas Grid Limited (Iggl) and 4 Ors.