Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010270812024 2025:GAU-AS:4870 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/545/2024 NURUL AMIN MAZUMDAR AND 5 ORS. S/O LATE ABDUL AHAD MAZUMDAR, R/O VILL- BIDHYA RATANPUR, P.O.- BIDHYA RATANPUR, P.S.-DHOLAI, PROGONA- DAVID SONABAD, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788120 2: AINUL HOQUE MAZUMDAR S/O LATE ABDUL AHAD MAZUMDAR R/O VILL- BIDHYA RATANPUR P.O.-BIDHYA RATANPUR P.S.-DHOLAI PROGONA- DAVID SONABAD DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788120 3: NAZRUL HOQUE MAZUMDAR S/O LATE ABDUL AHAD MAZUMDAR R/O VILL- BIDHYA RATANPUR P.O.-BIDHYA RATANPUR P.S.-DHOLAI PROGONA- DAVID SONABAD DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788120 4: SAJAN AHMED MAZUMDAR S/O LATE ABDUL AHAD MAZUMDAR R/O VILL- BIDHYA RATANPUR P.O.-BIDHYA RATANPUR P.S.-DHOLAI PROGONA- DAVID SONABAD DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78812 Page No.# 2/5 VERSUS MINA BEGUM LASKAR ANR 4 ORS. W/O LATE UKIL ALI LASKAR, VILL- TULARGRAM PART-II, P.O.-SONAI MUKH, PROGONA-SONAPUR, P.S.-SONAI, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788119 2:JAKIR HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O LATE ASKOR ALI LASKAR VILL AND P.O.- BIDHYA RATANPUR P.S.-DHOLAI PORGONA- DAVID SOBABAD DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788120 3:SAMIM AHMED LASKAR S/O LATE KUTUB UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL- RAJNAGAR P.O.- BIDHYA RATANPUR P.S.-DHOLAI PORGONA- DAVID SOBABAD DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788120 4:HANIF AHMED LASKAR S/O LATE KUTUB UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL- RAJNAGAR P.O.- BIDHYA RATANPUR P.S.-DHOLAI PORGONA- DAVID SOBABAD DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788120 5:FAHIM AHMED LASKAR S/O LATE KUTUB UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL- RAJNAGAR P.O.- BIDHYA RATANPUR P.S.-DHOLAI PORGONA- DAVID SOBABAD DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78812 Page No.# 3/5 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. I. Alam, Advocate Mr. T. Sk., Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. K. Malakar, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. I. Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. K. Malakar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff. 2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 230/2023 arising out of Title Suit No. 140/2020 which was renumbered as Title Suit No. 163/2021 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) had rejected the application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 156 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) as well as did not accept the written statement so filed by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court. 3. This Court has duly perused the materials on record including the orders passed in the Title Suit till 20.06.2023 wherefrom it is apparent that some person was representing the defendants without any vakalatnama. It is further relevant to take note of the manner in which the learned Trial Court proceeded in the suit inasmuch as on one hand it has been mentioned that both the parties are represented and on the other hand had fixed the matter for SR/WS, which clearly shows the complete non-application of mind. Even in the order dated 20.06.2023 by Page No.# 4/5 which the learned Trial Court had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner there is a clear mention that no Vakalatnama has been filed by the counsel who was representing the defendants. It is the specific case of the defendants that they had no knowledge about the suit and it was only after 20.06.2023, the defendants came to know about the pendency of the said suit and accordingly the defendants/the petitioners herein filed the written statement and subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 156 of the Code for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 20.06.2023 and further to accept the written statement. This application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2024. 4. It is well settled that the Rules of Procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. (See Mahila Ramkali Devi and Others Vs. Nandram (Dead) through Lrs. and Others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 132, Paragraph No. 20). 5. In the backdrop of the above materials on record, it is seen that the learned Trial Court had proceeded with the suit on one hand, assuming that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have been duly served the summons on the basis that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were represented by some counsel and on the other hand, the learned Trial Court also was clearly aware of the fact that the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 were represented by a person who did not had the power to represent the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court was obligated to peruse the records as to whether the Page No.# 5/5 summons were served and thereupon record the same in the order- sheet. 6. This Court further takes note of that the defendants immediately upon coming to learn about the pendency of the proceedings had filed their written statement before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court ought to have accepted the said written statement and proceed with the suit instead of rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 156 of the Code vide the impugned order dated 27.09.2024. 7. This Court further finds it very appalling to take note of that the application was filed on 09.08.2023 before the learned Trial Court and it has taken more than a year for disposal of an application seeking vacation of an ex-parte order and for acceptance of the written statement. In this process, a period of more than a year had elapsed which in the opinion of this Court was not in the interest of justice. 8. Accordingly, this Court interferes with the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court in Misc (J) Case No. 230/2023 and thereby directs the learned Trial Court to accept the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the suit and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant