Page No.# 1/3 vs Pancham Pandit And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3295 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010166452014




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

                           Case No. : CRP/150/2014

         SMT. JASODA DEVI and 8 ORS


         2: SHIVA PRASAD SARMA


         3: RAJESH SARMA


         4: MADHU SARMA


         5: LAKHI SARMA


         6: MANUMAYA SARMA


         7: CHANDRAMA SARMA


         8: BIMALA SARMA


         9: BINA SARMA
          NO.1 WIFE
          NO.2and3 SONS AND 4 TO 9 ARE D/O LT. UMANATH SARMA
          1 TO 9 ARE ALL R/O DR. NEOG PATH
          BYE LANE NO.5
         ANANDA NAGAR
          GHY-5
         AND WITH PLACE OF BUSINESS AT C/O ASSAM RISE ENGINEERING
         WORKS
          G.S. ROAD
                                                                      Page No.# 2/3

             ULUBARI
             GHY-7
             DIST- KAMRUP
             ASSA

             VERSUS

             PANCHAM PANDIT and 3 ORS.


             2:JAY NARAYAN PANDIT


             3:SATYA NARAYAN PANDIT
             ALL S/O LT. MUKHRAM PANDIT @ BHAGAT
             ALL ARE R/O G.S. ROAD
              ULUBARI
              NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR
              GHY-7

             4:LAKHAN SARMA
              S/O LT. RAM GOVIND SARMA
              R/O DR. NEOG PATH
              BYE LANE NO.5
             ANANDA NAGAR
              GHY-

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.B CHAKRABORTY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S ALI

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY Order

30.08.2022

None appears for the petitioners on call.

This revision petition is against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Munsif No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in TS No. 306/2007 whereby Page No.# 3/3

the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred, which was registered as TA No. 6/2013. Same was also dismissed by the learned Appellate court under its judgment dated 07.08.2013. The plaintiff/ respondent filed the suit claiming that the present petitioner was a tenant and the suit was filed for ejectment of the present petitioner on the plea of bonafide requirement.

Be that as it may, as none appears for the petitioner, this revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant