Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010117772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/199/2025 ALFAZ UDDIN AND ANR SON OF SOMEJ UDDIN, R/O VILL- MANDIA GAON, P.O.- MANDIA, MOUZA- MANDIA, P.S.- BAGHBOR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM 2: HASEM ALI @ ABUL HASEM ALI SON OF KADAM ALI R/O VILL- MANDIA GAON P.O.- MANDIA MOUZA- MANDIA P.S.- BAGHBOR DIST- BARPETA ASSA VERSUS BOINDALI MIYA AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE BINOD ALI, R/O VILL- MANDIA GAON, P.O.- MANDIA, MOUZA- MANDIA, P.S.- BAGHBOR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781308 2:ASURUDDIN SON OF LATE MOKSED ALI R/O VILL- MANDIA GAON P.O.- MANDIA MOUZA- MANDIA P.S.- BAGHBOR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781308 3:SILIM ALI SON OF LATE ASHAHAK ALI R/O VILL- MANDIA GAON P.O.- MANDIA MOUZA- MANDIA Page No.# 2/3 P.S.- BAGHBOR DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. Islam, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 24.06.2025 Heard Mr. J. Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. It is noticed from the additional affidavit filed by the engaged counsel that the service upon the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been duly affected by way of dasti. Accordingly, the service upon the respondents is deemed to be complete however, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents on call. 3. The petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.134/2024 whereby the application seeking condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) was rejected. 4. It is relevant to take note of that the provisions of Order IX Rule 7 of the Code do not stipulate that there is a requirement for filing any application for condonation of delay. What it stipulates is that the defendant can by filing an application and having shown good cause Page No.# 3/3 relegate the suit back to the date on which the suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendant. 5. Considering the above, the very filing of the application seeking condonation of delay was not maintainable and further the order so passed on 07.03.2025 in Misc. (J) Case No.134/2024 was also nonest in law. 6. Accordingly, this Court interferes with the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.134/2024 thereby holding the same to be nonest. 7. This Court further directs the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Barpeta to consider the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code to the effect as to whether there was any good cause shown by the petitioners who are the defendants in the suit and pass appropriate orders without being influenced by the order dated 07.03.2025. 8. This Court directs the petitioners to appear before the learned Trial Court on 21.07.2025 and before proceeding, the learned Trial Court shall duly inform the respondents. 9. With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. 10. A certified copy of the instant order be produced before the learned Trial Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant