Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010238512024 2025:GAU-AS:3542 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/475/2024 SMTI NAYANMONI SWARGIRY @ NAYANMONI GOHAIN W/O RAMEN SWARGIRY, R/O PARBATIA MILAN ROAD, P.O., P.S. -TINSUKIA, PEOLI NAGAR, RANI PATH, P.O., P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN-786125 VERSUS SMTI. RIJU GOHAIN AND 3 ORS. W/O LATE JATIN GOHAIN, P/R/O PARBOTIA, WARD NO. 6, P.O., P.S. AND DIST-TINSUKIA, ASSAM AND P/R/A BACK SIDE OF DDR COLLEGE, P.O.- CHABUA, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2:PRANABJYOTI GOHAIN S/O LATE JATIN GOHAIN P/R/O PARBOTIA WARD NO. 6 P.O. P.S. AND DIST-TINSUKIA ASSAM AND P/R/A BACK SIDE OF DDR COLLEGE P.O.-CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1) 3:MISS RITUSHNA GOHAIN D/O LATE JATIN GOHAIN P/R/O PARBOTIA WARD NO. 6 P.O. P.S. AND DIST-TINSUKIA ASSAM AND P/R/A BACK SIDE OF DDR COLLEGE P.O.-CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1) 4:MISS PRIYANK GOHAIN D/O LATE JATIN GOHAIN P/R/O PARBOTIA WARD NO. 6 P.O. P.S. AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM AND P/R/A BACK SIDE OF DDR COLLEGE P.O.-CHABUA DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Saikia, Advocate B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 28.03.2025 Heard Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S. Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Tinsukia (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 60/2023 whereby the application filed for accepting the written statement against the counter-claim was rejected. 3. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Page No.# 3/6 and has given its anxious consideration to the respective submissions. This Court has also perused the materials on record. 4. From the materials on record, it is seen that the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking partition of the suit property described in the plaint. The respondents herein who are the defendants had filed the written statement. A counter-claim was also filed separately by the defendants. The said counter-claim was filed on 16.11.2023. From the order-sheet enclosed to the instant petition, more particularly, Annexure-5, it is seen that the learned Trial Court taking note of the fact that the defendants have filed their written statement along with their counter-claim fixed 16.12.2023 for filing of the written statement against the counter-claim. It is further noticed from the orders dated 16.12.2023 and 24.01.2024 that the copies of the written statement as well as the counter-claim was not received by the plaintiff. 5. It is relevant to take note of that the plaintiff was represented by the learned counsel and it was the duty of the learned counsel to have received the written statement as well as the counter-claim and bring it to the notice of the plaintiff. It is further seen that only on 26.02.2024, a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff that some documents are required for filing the written statement against the counter-claim. Therefore, from a conjoint reading of the orders passed on 16.11.2023, 16.12.2023, 24.01.2024 and 26.02.2024, it would be seen that the learned counsels who had represented the plaintiff in the suit, did not received the counter-claim till 24.01.2024. 6. It was only on 14.06.2024 that the plaintiff filed the written statement against the counter-claim along with the petition No. 2636/2024 praying to accept the written statement against the counter-claim. This petition was Page No.# 4/6 rejected vide an order dated 14.08.2024 by the learned Trial Court which is impugned in the instant proceedings. 7. In this respect, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of Order VIII Rule 6 A (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) which stipulates that a counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the Rules applicable to the plaint. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of Order VIII Rule 6(G) of the Code which stipulates that the Rules relating to written statement by a defendant shall apply to a written statement filed in answer to a counter-claim. Therefore, the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code would apply insofar as filing of the written statement against the counter- claim. 8. In the backdrop of the above, this Court takes note of the order-sheet of the learned Trial Court. It transpires therefrom that till 24.01.2024, the plaintiff was not aware of filing of any counter-claim and it was on account of the fault of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been saddled with the order dated 11.03.2024 thereby rejecting further time to file the written statement to the counter-claim. 9. Further to that, a perusal of the orders dated 26.02.2024, 04.03.2024 as well as 11.03.2024, it appears that even after committing such a gross mistake by the learned counsels who were representing the plaintiff, they did not care to take effective remedial actions. In fact, the order dated 11.03.2024 speaks large the manner in which the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the plaintiff were conducting the suit. The leading counsel was not present on 11.03.2024 in spite of the fact that vide the order dated 04.03.2024 a last chance was given along with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It seems the learned counsels for the plaintiff Page No.# 5/6 woke up only when the order dated 11.03.2024 was passed and thereupon on 14.06.2024 filed their written statement to the counter-claim along with the prayer for accepting the written statement to the counter-claim and deposited the cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It is a trite principle of law that on account of the fault of the counsel, the party should not suffer and the present case is a glaring example as to how the learned counsels of the plaintiff have betrayed the trust reposed upon them by the plaintiff. 10. During the course of the hearing, this Court wanted to know as to who are the counsels for whose negligence and faults, the plaintiff had to endure this difficulty. Mr. S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there were three counsels who were appearing on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit. They were Sri Pranesh Roy, Sri Abhishek Chakroborty and Sri Bikash Prasad. 11. Taking into account the fault on the part of the counsels which the learned Trial Court ought to have taken note of as was apparent from the order-sheet itself, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court ought to have accepted the written statement filed by the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, this Court interferes with the order dated 14.08.2024. 12. This Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that on account of the plaintiff as well as her counsels, the defendants have been subjected to undue harassment. It is the opinion of this Court that some form of compensation is required to be paid. Accordingly, this Court imposes a cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the plaintiff which shall be deposited by the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court on the next date so fixed hereinafter. It is further observed that the deposit of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be a condition precedent for Page No.# 6/6 acceptance of the written statement to the counter-claim by the plaintiff. 13. This Court further takes note of that vide an order dated 20.11.2024, the further proceedings of Title Suit No. 60/2023 was stayed. The said stay order stands vacated and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court i.e. the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Tinsukia on 22.04.2025. 14. This Court further observes and directs that upon deposit of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- on the next date so fixed i.e. on 22.04.2025, the learned Trial Court shall accept the written statement to the counter-claim and proceed with the suit. The defendants would be at liberty to file application before the learned Trial Court for release of the said amount and the learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders. 15. Before parting with the record, this Court observes that the plaintiff herein would be at liberty to take steps against the above mentioned counsels of the plaintiff as well as realize the amount of costs by filing appropriate applications, if so advised. 16. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed. J U D G E Comparing Assistant