Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Represented By The Branch Head – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Borah S/o Late Purno Borah – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. KK Nandi, learned counsel for the caveator who is the respondent No.1.
2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 10.07.2019, the order dated 02.11.2021 as well as the order dated 17.06.2022, passed in Title Suit No.465/2018.
3. Taking into consideration the question involved in the instant proceedings, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage.
4. In view of the order which this Court proposes to pass the presence of the proforma defendant is not necessary.
5. The facts of the instant case is that the respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff has filed the suit being Title Suit No.465/2018 against the Proforma Respondent herein. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit is that the proforma defendant herein is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 10 lecha covered by Patta No.344 (old) 792 (new) Dag No.606/606 (old), 1950 (new) of village No.2, Japorigog Mouza Beltola, district Kamrup (M) Assam.
6. Upon the said land the Proforma Respondent herein started construction of a multistoried RCC building. The plaintiff being interested approached
It is not required for a defendant to vacate an order to proceed ex-parte if hearing of the suit has not concluded.
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing a defendant to participate in proceedings, ruling that procedural errors in ex-parte judgments violate principles of natural justice.
Procedural due process requires all parties be notified of court hearings to ensure fair representation in proceedings.
No limitation under Article 137 for Order IX Rule 7 CPC; ex parte parties may participate in ongoing proceedings if good cause shown.
The concept of 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be judged objectively, and the party seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree must provide a reasonable cause for their non-appearance....
The High Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its subjective opinion in place of the finding....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
