Serial No.01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
CRP. No. 22 of 2023
Date of Order :31.05.2024
Smt. Dasara Suting
W/o (L) B. Japang,
R/o New Colony, Laitumkhrah,
Shillong -793003,
P.O. & P.S. Laitumkhrah,
Dist. East Khasi Hills.
…Petitioner
-Versus-
Sri. Woling Lyngdoh,
S/o (L) P.Lyngkhoi,
R/o Riatsamthiah, Mawkhar,
Shillong 2,
–
P.O. Bara Bazar, P.S. Sadar,
Dist. East Khasi Hills.
…Respondent
Coram:
Hon ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge.
’
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K.Borah, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.Syngkon, Adv.
Ms. L.Phanjom, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
1
ORAL
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:
2
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.
Judge
Meghalaya
31.05.2024
“Samantha PS”
3