Disposed¶21

Prabhu Kumar Poddar v. Smt. Indu Jain

Gauhati HC14 Jul 2026CRP(IO)/60/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; CRP(IO)/60/2026; Prabhu Kumar Poddar v. Smt. Indu Jain; Justice Robin Phukan; 15.07.2026. Article 227 petition against rejection of Order IX Rule 13 CPC applications to set aside ex parte order dated 16.01.2025 in Title Suit No.514/2024 (Civil Judge Sr. Div. No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati); remedy held to lie in appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC per Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787; petition withdrawn and disposed of with liberty to file fresh appropriate petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing an appropriate petition ¶21

Prabhu Kumar Poddar Vs Smt. Indu Jain — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010005902026

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : CRP(IO)/60/2026

¶5

PRABHU KUMAR PODDAR

¶6

SON OF LATE K.D. PODDAR, RESIDENT OF PODDAR BHAWAN, MALIGAON, BARA BAZAR, P.O.-PANDU, P.S.- JALUKBARI, DISTRICTKAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SMT. INDU JAIN

¶9

WIFE OF LATE PADAM JAIN, RESIDENT OF A.K. AZAD ROAD, P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR, REHABARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M L PANDIA,

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

¶12

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

15.07.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. M.L. Pandia, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

It is to be noted here that in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 16.01.2025 and 18.11.2025,

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No.514/2024. It is also to be noted here that vide impugned orders dated 16.01.2025 and 18.11.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, has rejected the petitions filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte order dated 16.01.2025.

¶19

It is also to be noted here that it is well settled in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another , reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 that when an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed, the defendant can only avail a remedy available there against viz. to prefer an appeal in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶20

In view of the aforementioned proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra) when brought to the notice of Mr. Pandia, he submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach this Court again by filing appropriate petition.

¶21

Accordingly, taking note of the submission of Mr. Pandia, learned counsel for the petitioner, this civil revision petition stands disposed of on withdrawal. However, liberty will remain with the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing appropriate petition.

¶22

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶23

Comparing Assistant

Prabhu Kumar Poddar v. Smt. Indu Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Kumar Poddar v. Smt. Indu Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranju Deka Vs the General Manager, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Dr Manabendra Lahkar Vs Smti Malati Nath and Anr.

Smti. Padmawati Hazarika @ Padmavati Hazarika Vs Navajit Bora

Smt Bhanita Kalita Vs Sri Bikash Ranjan Das

Putul Das and Ors. Vs Madhabi Mazumder

Project Director National Highways Authority of India NHAI Vs Sri Jai Prakash Prasad