Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Binod Kumar Jain And 6 Ors on 18 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010193122024
2025:GAU-AS:8185
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/354/2024
MUNNI DOGRA @ MUNNI GANGWAL
D/O LATE SURAJMAL GANGWAL,
RESIDNET OF BK KAKATI ROAD, REHABARI, PO REHABARI, PS PALTAN
BAZAR, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781008
VERSUS
BINOD KUMAR JAIN AND 6 ORS
S/O SRI PANNA LAL JAIN
RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD, PAN BAZAR, PS PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI
781001 KAMRUP M ASSAM
2:MAHAVIR PRASAD JAIN
S/O SRI PANNA LAL JAIN
RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD
PAN BAZAR
PS PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001 KAMRUP M ASSAM
3:PRADEEP KUMAR JAIN
S/O SRI PANNA LAL JAIN
RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD
PAN BAZAR
PS PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001 KAMRUP M ASSAM
4:KUSUM DEVI PANDYA
D/O SRI PANNA LAL JAIN
RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD
PAN BAZAR
PS PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001 KAMRUP M ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
5:SMTI SAMIJ JAIN
D/O SRI PANNA LAL JAIN
RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD
PAN BAZAR
PS PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001 KAMRUP M ASSAM
6:SUPURNA SHAH
D/O SRI PANNA LAL JAIN
RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD
PAN BAZAR
PS PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001 KAMRUP M ASSAM
7:RAMANANLAL JAIN
S/O SRI PANNA LAL JAIN
RESIDENT OF DANISH ROAD
PAN BAZAR
PS PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001 KAMRUP M ASSA
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. S. Mochahari, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 18.06.2025
Heard Mr. G. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S.
Mochahari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The present application has been filed challenging the order dated
24.06.2024 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.360/2024 arising out of Title Suit
No.39/2012 whereby the application filed under Order IX Rule 7 of the
Page No.# 3/5
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code) for setting aside the
ex-parte order and to recall the orders dated 21.11.2022 and 05.07.2023
was rejected.
3. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that the plaintiff who was
the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents had filed a suit
being Title Suit No.39/2012 against various defendants of which the
defendant Nos. 1 to 7 were the main defendants and defendant Nos. 8 to
10 were the proforma defendants.
4. The record reveals that the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have jointly filed a
written statement on 18.08.2012. It is very pertinent to take note of that
in the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 7, the
verification as well as the affidavit which is required to be filed under
Order VI Rule 15 of the Code was done by the defendant No.2 and it was
specifically mentioned in the affidavit filed by the defendant No.2 in
support of the written statement that she has been authorized to take
steps in the suit for self and for on behalf of the other defendants. The
suit thereupon proceeded.
5. When the plaintiff adduced evidence, the defendants did not take
any steps for cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses and further the
defendants also in spite of opportunity being given, did not adduce any
evidence.
6. The suit was at the stage of passing of the judgment after the
arguments when the application was filed by the petitioner who was the
defendant No.1 in the suit alleging inter alia that the entire responsibility
for taking steps in the suit was given to the defendant No.7 and the
Page No.# 4/5
defendant No.7 was in touch with the counsel. However, after the
defendant No.7 died, there was no connection between the
petitioner/defendant No.1 with the counsel and as such, the suit
proceeded ex-parte to the stage of arguments.
7. The said stand so taken by the defendant No.1/petitioner herein on
the face of it appears to be incorrect taking into account that the
defendant No.2 had categorically stated in the written statement that she
was authorized to take steps on behalf of all the defendants.
8. It is further apposite herein to take note of that the defendant No.2
or any other defendants did not approach the Court for the purpose of
setting aside the ex-parte proceedings continuing against them and it is
only the petitioner who has approached this Court. The reasons therefore
so assigned in the application so filed by the petitioner before the learned
Trial Court therefore does not appear to be good cause to permit the
petitioner/defendant No.1 to relegate the suit to the date on which the
plaintiff witnesses were to be cross-examined. Under such circumstances,
this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition for which the
instant petition stands dismissed.
9. This Court further takes note of that as per the settled principle of
law, the defendants can appear on any date from the stage the suit is
presently fixed. Considering the above, as the suit is fixed at the stage of
arguments, the defendants can very well participate in the arguments.
10. It is seen that vide an order dated 18.09.2024, the further
proceedings of Title Suit No.39/2012 pending before the Court of the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati was
Page No.# 5/5
stayed. The said stay orders stands vacated and as the parties are duly
represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court
on 14.07.2025 for further proceedings of the suit.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
