High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 05 MEG CK 0084

Dasara Suting vs Woling Lyngdoh, S/o (L) P.Lyngkhoi

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 31 May 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.S. Thangkhiew, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Revision Petition. No. 22 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 343 words

H.S. Thangkhiew, J

1.

The petitioner is before this Court by way of this instant application under 115 of the CPC assailing the order dated 18-08-2023, passed in Title Suit No. 98 of 2022 by the Court of Presiding Officer, Subordinate District Council Court, Khasi Hills, Shillong, whereby the said suit was dismissed for default.

2.

A perusal of the impugned order indicates that on 18-08-2023, the Trial Court had recorded that both the parties were absent, and on perusal of the record, it was found that the plaintiff remained absent on five consecutive dates, and it was observed that the absence seem to suggest that the plaintiff was no longer interested to pursue the instant suit filed against the defendant, who also never entered appearance despite of receiving notice from the Court. As such, the suit was dismissed, which has brought the petitioner before this Court.

3.

Mr. P.K.Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to take recourse to Order IX of the CPC which deals with appearance of parties and consequence of non-appearance. Specific mention has been made to Order IX rule 3, which he submits bars the dismissal of a suit when the plaintiff is not present. Order IX rule 3, for the sake of convenience is quoted herein below:

“ORDER IX

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES AND

CONSEQUENCE OF NON-APPEARANCE.

3.

Where neither party appears, suit to be dismissed – Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed.”

4.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the above noted provision seem to be misplaced. As observed earlier, in the instant case, the Trial Court had been patient enough on four earlier consecutive dates, and did not dismiss the suit for default, but on the fifth consecutive date, on non-appearance of the parties, the suit was dismissed for default.

5.

Without the need for hearing the other side, as no ground has been made out for interference, the revision petition is dismissed.