High CourtsSingle Bench(1981) 12 GAU CK 0007

Gulap Chand Jain vs 3(HN) BN, Assam Rifles represented by the Commandant

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 7 December 1981 · Citation: (1982) 1 GLR 75

HON’BLE JUDGES
D. Pathak, Acting C.J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 18 (H) of 1981

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

8 paragraphs · 392 words

D. Pathak, Actg. C.J.

1.

This revision petition under Rule 34 of the Rules for Administration of Justice & Police in Nagaland is directed against the orders dated 22.1.81, 23.1.81 and 23.4.81 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima in Money Suit No. 4 of 1980.

2.

The Opposite Party 3rd (NH) BN, Assam Rifles. Kohima, Nagaland filed a money suit on which summons was issued on the Defendant, the present Petitioner. On the first date of appearance the Defendant could not be present himself. But on the subsequent date he entered appearance and showed cause for his failure to be present on the earlier date. However, the learned trial Court rejected the cause shown by the Petitioner. Although an order for ex parte hearing was passed, it was not taken up for ex parte hearing, But subsequently by the final order impugned before me the ex parte hearing was taken and it was decreed against the Defendant.

3.

This case has come up from the State of Nagaland. It is found that on the next date the Petitioner duly showed cause for his failure to appear on the first date which was only a date for appearance. When on the next date he appeared and showed cause, the Court should have considered his application and should have disposed of the application in its proper perspective. On the other hand the learned trial Court failed to consider his prayer to allow him to file the written statement. I have gone through the order dated 23.4.81 and I find that no reason has been given to reject the petition filed by the present Petitioner on 2.2.81. On consideration of the entire matter, I find that in the interest of justice the written statement which has already been filed, shall be taken into consideration and the suit should proceed on the basis of the plaint as well as the written statement filed by the Petitioner.

4.

In the result the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is not aside and the Rule is made absolute.

The petition is allowed. However, I pass no order as to costs.

The parties should appear before the learned trial Court on 18th of January, 1982 to take necessary orders from the trial Court.

Send down the records of the case immediately to the trial Court.