Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1119
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
The Chief Post Master General North Eastern Circle – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kipu Kamchan W/o Shri Tacho Lida
RSA No. 2/2019, RSA No. 3/2019, RSA No. 4/2019, RSA No. 5/2019, RSA No. /2019, RSA No. 7/2019, RSA No.8/2019, RSA No. 9/2019, RSA No. 10/2019 RSA No. 11/2019, RSA No. 12/2019
Decided on : 28-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. S. K. Ghosh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M. Bhat, Advocate, Ms. P. Pengu, Government Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces that failure to contest a suit and provide evidence can lead to adverse judgments, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in civil litigation.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure - Money Recovery - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 96, 100, Order 8 Rule 5, Order 41 Rule 31 - The Court upheld the decrees of the lower courts, emphasizing the importance of evidence in money suits and the implications of failing to contest claims.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed money suits against the defendants for recovery of amounts deposited in recurring deposit schemes, which were decreed by the Trial Court. The defendants failed to contest the suits, leading to ex-parte judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court had sufficient evidence from the recurring deposit pass books to decree the suits. The appellants' failure to contest the claims or provide evidence undermined their position.
Issues: Whether the lower courts erred in decreeing the suits without proper consideration of evidence and procedural compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Trial Court's reliance on the recurring deposit pass books was justified, and the appellants' failure to contest the suits precluded them from challenging the decrees effectively.
Result: All Regular Second Appeals are dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. M. Bhat, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 in all the appeals as well as Ms. P. Pengu, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent.
2. By this common judgment, this Court intend to dispose of the above mentioned 10 numbers of Regular Second Appeal as the facts and the question involved in all the appeals are similar.
3. Considering the similarity of the facts involved in all the above-mentioned appeals, there was a unanimity at the bar at the time of hearing of the appeals also that all the appeals may be heard together and may be disposed of by a common judgment.
4. It is also pertinent to mention herein that common substantial questions were raised in all the aforesaid appeals and they were heard together. Moreover, the appellants as well as the respondents in all the above mentioned appeals were represented by the same set of lawyers on both sides.
5. All the Appeals under consideration were filed by the appellants, namely, (1) Chief Post Master General, North Eastern Circle, Shillong, (2) Director of Postal Services, Arunachal Pradesh Division, and (3) Sub Post Master, R. K. Mission Post Office, Itanagar, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, impugning the judgments of the First Appellate Court i.e., the Court of the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia, whereby the judgments and decree of the Trial Courts, all the cases under consideration, were affirmed.
6. To state, briefly:
A. In the Regular Second Appeal No.2 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge West Session Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 22/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 22/2015 was affirmed, the suit was decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- from the defendants with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint till realization.
B. In the RSA No. 3 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 23/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment of the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 23/2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,41,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed.
C. In the RSA No. 4 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 15/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 04/2015 for an amount of Rs. 4,59,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed.
D. In the RSA No. 5 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 17/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 06/2015 for an amount of Rs. 2,97,000/- along with an interest of 8% per annum was affirmed.
E. In the RSA No. 6 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia in Money Appeal No. 18/2017 (YPA), whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Yupia on 28.02.2017 in Money Suit No. 07/2015 for an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- along with an interest of 8.4% per annum was affirmed.
F. In the RSA No. 7 of 2019, the appellants have impugned the judgment and decree dated 07.0
