Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(Tri) 240
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Md. Abdul Rahim - Appellant
Versus
Muslem Miah & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 91 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Important Points
The court may grant adjournments to ensure all parties are adequately represented and have the opportunity to file necessary legal documents.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections related to adjournment - The court allowed an adjournment requested by the respondents for filing vakalatnama and written objection against the petition. (Paras 1-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition, and the respondents requested an adjournment to prepare their response.
Findings of Court:
The court granted the adjournment and scheduled the matter for a future hearing date.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondents should be granted an adjournment for the purpose of legal representation and response.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it appropriate to allow the adjournment to ensure fair representation of the respondents in the proceedings.
Result: Adjournment allowed.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition, and the respondents requested an adjournment to prepare their response.
Findings of Court:
The court granted the adjournment and scheduled the matter for a future hearing date.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the respondents should be granted an adjournment for the purpose of legal representation and response.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it appropriate to allow the adjournment to ensure fair representation of the respondents in the proceedings.
Result: Adjournment allowed.
Advocates appeared:
Raju Datta, Advocate, Kundan Pandey, Advocate
Raju Datta, Advocate, Kundan Pandey, Advocate
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for adjournment by respondents. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel for petitioner presents the case. (Para 2) |
| 3. court grants adjournment for vakalatnama. (Para 3) |
| 4. matter to be listed for hearing on specified date. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urges the Court for an adjournment for filing vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents and written objection against the petition.
2. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.
3. Adjournment, as sought for, is allowed.
4. List the matter on 13.12.2022.
