Dipak Nath v. Durlav Shil
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for further trial, setting aside an order that denied appellants the opportunity to file an additional written statement in answer to an amended plaint.
What did the court decide?
Set aside impugned order of 03.07.2012; appellants directed to file additional written statement; trial court to allow evidence for new issues; suit to be disposed of within three months.
What the court decided
RFA No. 21/2012
B E F O R E
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the appellants : Mr. S. M.Chakraborty, Sr. Adv. Ms. B. Chakraborty, Adv. For the respondents : Mr. D. Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
15.05.2017.
Having heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that this appeal is to be disposed of by remanding it to trial Court for further trial at the stage of filing of the amended plaint.
It is evident from the record that after filing of the amended plaint by the respondents on 03.07.2012, the appellants were not given opportunity to file their additional written statement in answer to the amended plaint. This is a procedural violation which cannot be condoned. A statement is clearly made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were interested in filing the additional written statement, but were not given the opportunity to do so. It is also evident from the record that after the filing of the amended plaint, no further evidence was also adduced by the respondents in support of their new pleadings incorporated in the amended plaint.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants were given an opportunity to file an additional written statement after the filing of the amended plaint.
Whether the procedural violation of not allowing the additional written statement can be condoned.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Appellants
- respondent
Respondents
Coram
T. Vaiphei
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Tripura HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- RFA/21/2012
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court