The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Namita Roy Choudhury
2025 Latest Caselaw 1452 Tri

Tripura High Court

The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Namita Roy Choudhury on 9 December, 2025

                                   Page 1 of 2




                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                                CRP No.53/2025
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary to the Government of
Tripura in the Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, New Capital
Complex, P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799010.
2. The Director of Health Services, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.-Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799006.
3. The Chief Medical Officer, Gomati District, Udaipur, P.S.-Radhakishorepur,
Pin-799120, Tripura.
                                                        ......... Petitioner(s).
                                VERSUS
Smt. Namita Roy Choudhury, D/O. Late Pravakar Roy Choudhury, resident of
Kakraban (Near Kakraban Market) P.O. & P.S.-Kakraban, District-Gomati
Tripura.
                                                        .........Respondent(s).

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bibek Banerjee, Advocate, Ms. Ruma Majumder, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

Order 09/12/2025

This revision is preferred against the order dt.27.05.2025 passed

by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Udaipur, Gomati District in

T.S. No.10 of 2023 on the file of the said Court.

2. In the said order, the said Court had rejected plea for condonation

of delay and also to set aside an order dt. 05.01.2024 making the petitioner-

State Government ex parte in the suit filed by the respondents against it.

3. The operative part of the judgment of the trial Court is as under:

"Heard both sides.

Accordingly, this court finds force in the submission of the Learned Counsel of the Plaintiff and hence, the petition filed by the Defendants side, is hereby, rejected."

4. A perusal of this portion of the order of the Court below indicates

that no reason is assigned by the said Court by independently applying its mind

to the contentions of both sides for rejecting the application filed by the

petitioner.

5. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the matter, the

impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted to the same Court for referring

to the contentions of both sides, dealing with the said contentions and also for

passing a reasoned order in accordance with law. Both parties shall be heard

afresh before passing such an order.

6. This exercise shall be completed within 4(four) weeks from today.

7. The revision petition is allowed to the above extent.

8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)

Pulak

PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK Date: 2025.12.09 16:34:34 +05'30'