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.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. D. Saraf, the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. H. Das, the Learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

2. This is an application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) challenging the judgment and order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kamrup at Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as, “the Learned First Appellate Court”) in Misc Appeal No. 07/2018 whereby the Misc Appeal No. 07/2018 was dismissed thereby confirming the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Learned Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup at Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as, “the Learned Trial Court”) in Misc (J) Case No. 88/2016.

3. The question arises in the instant proceedings, as to whether, this Court ought to exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 13.03.2024.

4. For ascertaining the said aspect of the matter, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceeding. The parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the Learned Trial Court.

5. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff had instituted a suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest in respect to a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No. 278 of K.P. Patta No. 10 of Revenue Village Tiling Gaon, under Silasundarighopa Mouza in the District of Kamrup, Assam; for delivery of khas possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit was initially registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 408/2009 (old), but was subsequently re-registered as Title Suit No.112/2014 (new).

6. In the said suit, the Petitioner herein who was the Defendant No.1 filed his written statement and further took all necessary steps. Annexure-A series is the order-sheet of Title Suit No. 112/2014. From the said Order sheet, it is seen that on 16.07.2014, the suit was fixed for filing of examination-in-chief on affidavit of the Plaintiff Witnesses. The Plaintiff sought for time and the Learned Trial Court fixed the matter on 12.08.2014 for filing of examination-in-chief on affidavit of the Plaintiff Witnesses. On 12.08.2014, the Plaintiff instead of filing the examination-in-chief on affidavit of his witnesses, the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff filed an application that he wanted to withdraw from the said suit on the ground that the Plaintiff was not maintaining any contact with him and further sought for time that he may be permitted to take steps by issuance of notice upon the Plaintiff. Therefore, though the suit was at the hearing stage but the Learned Trial Court fixed 11.09.2014 for Service Report so that the Plaintiff could be informed about the disengagement of his Counsel.

7. The above aspect of the matter therefore makes it very clear that the suit was not fixed for hearing on 11.09.2014. Be that as it may, a further perusal of Annexure –A Series would show that till 11.09.2014, the Learned counsel for the plaintiff did not even take steps to inform the Plaintiff about his disengagement. The Defendant No. 1 did not appear on 11.09.2014. The Learned Trial Court on a complete misconception of the settled principle of law decided to proceed ex-parte against the Defendant No. 1 herein and fixed 11.11.2014 for necessary Order. It is pertinent to observe that from a perusal of the order dated 11.09.2014 itself, that the counsel for the Plaintiff had taken steps upon the Plaintiff to inform him that the Counsel would not further like to continue representing the Plaintiff.

8. A perusal of the order dated 11.11.2014 of the Learned Trial Court would shows that the same counsel who was representing the plaintiff earlier, appeared before the Learned Trial Court and submitted that he may be permitted to continue with his representation of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff had contacted him. T