Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 703 (GAU)

MORIAM BEGUM v. ABDUL HUSSAIN

2014-07-16

A.M.SAPRE

body2014
Judgment Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a revision filed by the defendant against the order dated 24.06.2014 passed by Munsiff, Sankardeve Nagar, Hojai in Money Suit No.03/2009. By the impugned order, the learned Munsiff declined to grant adjournment to the defendant for filing the written statement in a suit filed by the respondent thereby deprived him of filing a written statement to contest the suit on merits. So the short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether learned Munsiff was justified in not granting further adjournment to the defendant to file the written statement? The impugned order dated 24.06.2014 reads as under : “Plaintiff side absent. Defendant side present. Defendant side filed petition No.1329/14 praying to grant some time to file written statement. Prayer rejected as no further adjournment can be granted as asked on last date. Fix 23.7.2014 for necessary order.” It is clear from the perusal of the impugned order that plaintiff was absent on the said date. It is also clear that no reasons were assigned by the learned Munsiff as to why he declined to grant any adjournment to the defendant to file the written statement. True it is that 27.05.2014, a mandatory order was passed directing the defendant to file the written statement by the next date of hearing, yet, in my opinion, substantial justice could have been met if defendant had been granted short adjournment by imposing cost. Be that as it may, having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the suit and the fact that ex parte decree was set aside, I consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to grant one indulgence to the defendant to file the written statement on payment of cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the plaintiff. On such cost being paid, the defendant is granted a months time to file the written statement from today. On such written statement being filed, the trial court shall proceed to decide the civil suit on merits in accordance with law. In case if defendant does not deposit the cost of Rs.1000/- along with the filing of the written statement or fails to file the written statement within the time fixed, then the trial court shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law in the absence of written statement. In case if defendant does not deposit the cost of Rs.1000/- along with the filing of the written statement or fails to file the written statement within the time fixed, then the trial court shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law in the absence of written statement. I have passed this order without considering it necessary to issue notice to other side because firstly, plaintiff was not present in the trial court when the impugned order was passed and secondly a cost of Rs.1000/- has been imposed on the defendant for being paid to the plaintiff. This, in my view, satisfy the principle of natural justice and enables me to pass an order without notice to respondent. Accordingly and in the light of the foregoing discussion, revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 24.06.2014 is set aside. A copy of this order be submitted before the learned Munsiff within a week by the revision petitioner (defendant) to enable him to proceed with the trial as directed in this order. No cost.