Nur Uddin and Anr v. Kutub Ali and 10 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010102432024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oCRP(IO)/253/2024o NURoUDDINoANDoANRo SONoOFoLATEoSOMSUoALI,oR/O-oVILL-oSINGARIA,oPO-oSINGARIAoBAZAR,o PS-oNILAMBAZAR,oDIST.-oKARIMGANJ,oASSAM 2:oSIRAJoUDDIN oSONoOFoLATEoSOMSUoALI oR/O-oVILL-oSINGARIA oPO-oSINGARIAoBAZAR oPS-oNILAMBAZAR oDIST.-oKARIMGANJ oASSAo VERSUSo KUTUBoALIoANDo10oORSo S/O-oLATEoAMRUoMIYA,oR/O-oVILL-oEASToLOWAIRPUWAo(JALALNAGAR),o PO-oHATIKHIRA,oPS-oBAZARICHERRA,oDIST.-oKARIMGANJ,oASSAM 2:ABDULoNOOR oS/O-oYEAKUBoALI oR/O-oVILLAGEoANDoPOoSINGARIA oPSoNILAMBAZAR oDISTRICT-oKARIMGANJ 3:SOFIAoBEGUM oW/O-oLATEoFAIZURoRAHMAN oVILL-oEASToLOWAIRPUA oPO-oHATIKHIRA oPS-oBAZARICHERRA oDIST.-oKARIMGANJ 4:ASMAoBEGUM oW/O-oMOINoUDDIN oVILL-oSOIDKHANI Page No.# 2/4 PO-MULLAGANJ BAZAR PS-NILAMBAZAR DIST.- KARIMGANJ 5:MOYNUL HAQUE SON OF AFTAR ALI R/O-VILLAGE AND PO KATHALTALI PS-BAZARICHERRA DIST-KARIMGANJ 6:FAIZUL HAQUE SON OF AFTAR ALI R/O-VILLAGE AND PO KATHALTALI PS-BAZARICHERRA DIST-KARIMGANJ 7:NAJRUL HAQUE SON OF AFTAR ALI R/O-VILLAGE AND PO KATHALTALI PS-BAZARICHERRA DIST-KARIMGANJ 8:HASON ALI SON OF AFTAR ALI R/O-VILLAGE AND PO KATHALTALI PS-BAZARICHERRA DIST-KARIMGANJ 9:THE STATE OF ASSAM (NOTICE TO BE SERVED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER) 10:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ PO PS AND DIST-KARIMGANJ 11:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NILAMBAZAR PO PS-NILAMBAZAR DIST.- KARIMGAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

Page No.# 3/4 :: BEFORE :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

O R D E R

24.07.2024

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel appears for Respondent Nos.9, 10 and 11.

¶2This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Karimganj in Misc Case No.484/2023 arising out of T.S. No.242/2021.

¶3The plaintiff of the suit filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the pleadings.

¶4The petitioners being the defendants, prayed for time to file an objection. The court below, on 16.11.2023, allowed the prayer of the petitioners and posted the case on

16.01.2024 for filing objection by the petitioners. Thereafter, the learned trial court corrected the date and posted the case on 30.11.2023.

¶5The petitioners state that they were not aware of the fact that the date was changed. Therefore, on 30.11.2023, they could not appear and file the objection. The trial court, therefore, allowed the prayer of the respondent/plaintiff.

¶6I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. Ahmed.

¶7I am of the considered opinion that the date was corrected subsequently. I have decided to agree with Mr. Ahmed that the petitioners did not have any knowledge about the fact.

¶8Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law.

¶9The impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Karimganj in Misc Case No.484/2023 arising out of T.S. No.242/2021, is set aside. Page No.# 4/4

¶10The learned trial court is directed to allow the present petitioners/defendants to file objection and after that the learned trial court shall decide and dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. With the above direction, the Revision Petition is disposed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant