Yare Tali and Others vs Tapak Tali

A.H. Saikia, J.—Heard Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K. Etc. learned counsel for the sole respondent.

This appeal has been directed against the order dated 22.9.2000 issued by the Circle Officer, (J), along on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, along, West Siang District in Misc. case No. 2/2000 dismissing the application, under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 of the CPC praying for setting aside the order dated 4.9.2000 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, along, West Siang District in Misc. case No. 2/2000 dismissing the case for default.

Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that on the date, i.e., 4.9.2000, fixed for hearing, the counsel for the appellant could not be present before the Court due to the death of his mother and eventually the appeal was dismissed for default. Being dissatisfied with the said dismissal, the appellants'' counsel immediately preferred an application under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9, CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal for default and for restoration of the case to file. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the said application for restoration of the Misc. case No. 2/2000 was dismissed in limine by the learned Deputy Commissioner by his impugned order without even hearing the appellants or his counsel and accordingly it is submitted that on that count along this impugned order should be set aside and quashed. On the other hand, Mr. K. Etc, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that there was no illegality or infirmity committed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in dismissing the case for default for non-appearance of the learned counsel for the appellants.

On careful perusal of the impugned orders dated 4.9.2000 as well as 22.9.2000 including the records made available before me and also upon hearing the learned counsel for the parries, I am inclined to allow this appeal for the reasons stated hereunder:

A bare scrutiny of the impugned order dated 22.9.2000 would patently show that no hearing was afforded to the appellants in dismissing his application under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 CPC.

Paramount duty of the Court of any other authority exercising judicial function is to do substantial justice. Court or any other judicial authority generally need, to avoid any pedantic approach which may prejudice the interest of the litigant. The approach of the Court should be liberal and pragmatic so that no injustice is caused to the litigant who has approached the Court with all the expectations of getting justice. Dismissal of an application for setting aside the dismissal order for default on technical consideration would definitely result in defeating the cause of substantial justice. In the instant case, it clearly, appears that the application for setting aside the dismissal order was dismissed in limine without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 4.9.2000 as well as 22.9.2000 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, along West Siang District are bad in law and there are accordingly hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Deputy Commissioner is directed to restore the Misc. case No. 2/2000 to his file in its original No. and proceed accordingly in accordance with law. Since the matter relates to the year 2000 and this order is being passed in presence of the learned counsel of the parties, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Deputy Commissioner, along, West Siang District on or before 24.6.2000 to obtain further orders.

Appeal is allowed accordingly. However no order is passed as to the costs.