Tripura High Court
Shri Bikash Dey vs Sri Amit Saha on 8 August, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.18 of 2025
Shri Bikash Dey, S/o Sri Nirmal Chandra Dey, resident of Chandrapur, Near
Dam, P.S. - East Agartala, District - West Tripura, Pin-799008.
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
Sri Amit Saha, S/o Sri Gurupada Saha, resident of Katashewla,
Jogendranagar, P.S. East Agartala, District - West Tripura, Pin-799004.
......... Respondent(s);
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Asmita Banik, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Dhruba Jyoti Saha, Advocate,
Mr. Samrat Sarkar, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
O-R-D-E-R
08/08/2025
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent herein filed a summary suit under Order
XXXVII of the CPC against the petitioner for recovery of some of money
amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the report of the trial Court, the
summons got properly served on the defendant/petitioner in Form No. IV of
Appendix- F on 04.06.2024 itself.
3. Thereafter, on 11.06.2024, counsel for the defendant/petitioner
appeared before the trial Court and filed a petition on behalf of the
defendant/petitioner praying for providing few days time to file Vakalatnama
to represent the defendant/petitioner. The matter was then adjourned to
14.06.2024 for appearance of the defendant/petitioner and filing of
Vakalatnama by him.
4. Again, on 14.06.2024, the counsel for the defendant/petitioner
sought more time to file Vakalatnama stating that the defendant/petitioner is
under treatment and so he could not appear before the Court.
5. The Court below then adjourned the matter to 02.07.2024 as a
last opportunity to the defendant/petitioner to appear and take proper steps in
the suit while noting that requisites had been filed for issuing summons for
judgment under Form No.4-A of Appendix-B as mentioned in Order XXXVII
Rule 3(4) of CPC.
6. When the matter was again listed on 02.07.2024, memo of
appearance along with Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the
defendant/petitioner and the counsel for the defendant/petitioner in the trial
Court merely stated that the defendant/petitioner will contest this suit but no
separate petition supported by affidavit or verification had been filed. Also no
address of the defendant/petitioner was filed for service of notices on him as
required under Order XXXVII Rule 3(1) of CPC.
7. Counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent prayed for issuing
the summons for judgment in Form No.4-A of Appendix-B of CPC upon the
defendant/petitioner at his address mentioned by the plaintiff/respondent
through registered post. The Court accepted it and adjourned the matter to
11.07.2024.
8. On 11.07.2024, the original postal receipt and the tracking-cum-
delivery report was filed by counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent in
the Court below.
9. The counsel for the defendant/petitioner again filed a petition
seeking adjournment without filing any Vakalatnama.
10. Court below rejected it and fixed the matter on 05.08.2024 for
hearing on summon for judgment.
11. Assailing the said order dt. 11.07.2024 this Revision petition is
filed.
12. The conduct of the defendant/petitioner in this case appears to be
totally evasive. The petitioner appears to think that the summary suit under
Order XXXVII of CPC is like any other civil suit ignoring the procedure
prescribed in CPC for deciding such summary suits.
13. As per Clause-(1) of Sub-Rule-3 of Order XXXVII of CPC,
within 10 days of service of summons under Rule-2, the defendant/petitioner
has to file in the Court an address for service of notice on him. He did not do
so.
14. Repeated adjournments have been sought on 11.06.2024,
14.06.2024, 02.07.2024 and again on 11.07.2024 as if the suit is an ordinary
civil suit for recovery of money and not a summary suit.
15. Even Vakalatnama was not filed by 11.07.2024, though the
counsel was engaged by the defendant/petitioner on 11.06.2024 itself.
16. More importantly, this Revision petition was filed on
01.04.2025, stalling the proceedings in the summary suit because the
defendant/petitioner on 26.09.2024 made a statement that the order passed by
the Court below on 11.07.2024 would be challenged in the High Court.
17. The matter was dragged on even thereafter till date on the pretext
that the Revision petition is pending in this Court, though there was no stay
granted by this Court in this Revision petition. As per the report of the Court
below dt. 04.07.2025, the defendant/petitioner has not even filed a petition
seeking leave of the Court to defend the suit as required under Sub-rule 5 of
Rule-3 of Order XXXVII of CPC.
18. More importantly, there is no material placed on record about the
illness of the defendant/petitioner and it cannot be presumed that such an
illness will continue for almost a year.
19. In my opinion, this Revision petition is an abuse of process of
Court and is not bona fide and there are no merits in the Revision petition.
20. Accordingly, the Revision petition is dismissed with cost of
Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of.
(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Munna MUNNA SAHA Date: 2025.08.12 16:08:59 +05'30'
