Smt. Shefali Nath Choudhury & Others vs Smt. Sumana Nath Choudhury & Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 1424 Tri

Tripura High Court

Smt. Shefali Nath Choudhury & Others vs Smt. Sumana Nath Choudhury & Others on 29 August, 2024

                                    Page 1 of 2




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                           CRP No.78 of 2024
Smt. Shefali Nath Choudhury & others
                                                               .........Petitioner(s);
                                Versus
Smt. Sumana Nath Choudhury & others
                                                              .........Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biplab Debnath, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : None.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH

Order 29/08/2024

Petitioners are defendant No.1, 2 & 3 in T.S. 04 of 2024. By the

impugned order dated 24.06.2024, they have been debarred from filing written

statement. Apart from them, defendants No.4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15 to 18 and 20

have also received summons. But since they did not appear, the said defendants

have also been debarred from filing written statement. So far as defendant No.6

is concerned, since plaintiff had failed to take steps for service of notice after

the summons were returned unserved, the learned Trial Court by the same

impugned order has dismissed the suit as against defendant No.6 in terms of

Order IX rule 5 of CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that defendants No.1, 2

& 3 received summons on 16.03.2024. They appeared on 18.04.2024 and

sought time to file written statement. Thereafter, on 24.06.2024 by the

impugned order just after 98 days of the receipt of the summons, they were

debarred from filing written statement. This would entail serious miscarriage of

justice as neither the delay was inordinate or intentional, nor the prescription of

time under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is mandatory in view of the judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association,

T.N. v. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that since the aggrieved party would only be the plaintiffs,

notice may be directed to be served only upon them instead of other defendants,

many of whom have remained absent even after receipt of summons.

Accordingly, let notice be served through the learned counsel

representing the plaintiffs in the Trial Court in T.S. 04 of 2024 and also through

ordinary process for which requisites be filed by Tuesday (03.09.2024).

Notice is made returnable on 03.10.2024.

(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ

Pijush/

MUNNA SAHA Digitally signed by MUNNA SAHA Date: 2024.08.29 15:06:16 +05'30'