High CourtsSingle Bench(1972) 06 GAU CK 0003

Khuki Barmani vs Kumar Prakritish Chandra Barua and others

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 16 June 1972 · Citation: AIR 1972 Guw 92

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Goswami, C.J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 13 of 1970

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

5 paragraphs · 364 words

P.K. Goswami, C.J.—This Civil Revision is directed against an order of the learned Assistant District Judge, Dhubri refusing to revive a suit which was earlier decreed in absence of the defendant.

2.

The ground on which the revival application was filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC was that no summons was served on the defendant. The learned Assistant District Judge came to the finding that in fact, no summons was served on the defendant. He, however, found during the course of the examination of the defendant, who is an illiterate woman, that she admitted that she did not file the application for revival and also that she did not put her signature on the application. The learned judge has accepted the possibility regarding the first answer that it may be that she personally had not filed the revival application and therefore he would not like to take any serious notice of this answer. With regard to the second answer that she did not put the signature, he thought that this was a case where the Court''s process was going to be abused by someone pretending to be acting on behalf of the petitioner.

Unfortunately, however, the learned Assistant District Judge failed to take note that the answer was given by an illiterate lady and that she had actually put her thumb impression and in that view of the matter, she truthfully answered to a question that she had not put her ''signature''. That being the position, the ground on which the learned Assistant District Judge refused to revive the suit, having found that the summons had not been served on the defendant, is entirely erroneous in law and has resulted in injustice to the defendant. She is entitled under the law on the finding of the Assistant District Judge, to an order in her favour.

3.

The revision application in the circumstances is allowed. The impugned order and the ex parte decree are set aside. The suit will stand restored to file and will be disposed of expeditiously. The records of the suit will be despatched to the court below immediately. There will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.