DIPAK BAYAN vs JONALI DAS

Heard Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.N. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. The

marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.04.2012. The opposite party filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 for dissolution of the marriage by decree of divorce. The prayer portion of this petition goes to show that no specific order is challenged and

all that is mentioned in the prayer portion is to allow the revision petition by calling for the records of the Court below.

Mr. Deka has submitted that by an order dated 07.01.2015, the learned trial Court had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner praying for

time to file written statement and unless the aforesaid order is interfered with, the petitioner will suffer grave prejudice. He submits that it is against

this order, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with

Sections 151/115 of the CPC.

Mr. Deka submits that the learned trial Court rejected the petition only on the ground that 90(ninety) days had elapsed from the date of service

of summons and, therefore, an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to file written statement. Mr. Ahmed contends that the impugned order

is justified and no interference is called for.

On a query of the Court, Mr. Deka has submitted that the petitioner is a Grade-III employee of the Government of Assam. By an order dated

10.06.2015, further proceedings in Title Suit (M) No.66/2013 was stayed by this Court.

By filing an affidavit, the petitioner has stated that no cross-examination had taken place till 21.04.2015. Mr. Deka has further submitted, though

the same is not part of the affidavit filed, that subsequent thereto also till the passing of the interim order of this Court, no cross-examination of the

witnesses had taken place.

It appears that till 04.06.2014, service of notice was not effected on the petitioner before the learned trial Court and the petitioner had entered

appearance on 23.07.2014 and on that day, had filed a petition for grant of time to file written statement. The Court had granted time till

03.09.2014 for filing written statement. The Presiding Officer had retired on 03.09.2014 and the next date was fixed on 05.11.2014 for necessary

order. No new Presiding Officer having joined, the case was again fixed on 07.01.2015 for necessary order. On 07.01.2015, a petition was filed

on behalf of the petitioner for filing written statement.

Though in Paragraph-8 of the present petition, it is stated that the learned trial Court most erroneously rejected the petition on 07.01.2015, the

petitioner has not brought on record the said petition and has also not disclosed the ground on which the petition was filed praying for time to file

written statement. It appears to the Court that this petition is most casually drafted and filed.

Before the petitioner approached this Court by filing this petition, the evidence of 3(three) witnesses were submitted on behalf of the respondent

herein. Perusal of the order dated 07.01.2015 goes to show that the learned trial Court rejected the petition only on the ground that 90(ninety)

days had elapsed. There is no indication that the ground stated in the petition was considered while rejecting the petition.

Though the petitioner has not helped his cause, considering the matter in its entirety, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be sub-served if

an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file his written statement subject to payment of cost.

The parties to this proceeding will appear before the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Bajali on 26th

February, 2018. The petitioner is permitted to submit his written statement on 26.02.2018 along with cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand). If no cost is deposited along with the written statement, the written statement shall not be accepted. If the cost is deposited along with

the written statement, the respondent shall be permitted to withdraw the said amount. The respondent is further permitted to file additional evidence

of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, if necessary. With the above observations and directions, the revision petition is allowed and disposed of.