Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010017912015 2025:GAU-AS:874 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/305/2015 AMIT DEBNATH S/O LT. SUDHIR CH. DEBNATH, R/O CHOWKITUP SUTOHAIBOR, NAGAON, P.O., P.S. and DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS SMTI BABLI BHOWMIK and 6 ORS W/O LT. PINTU KUMAR BHOWMIK For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Nandi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Goswami for respondent No. 3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. D. Nandi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. None appears on behalf of the other respondents on call. Page No.# 2/3 3. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order dated 26.06.2015 whereby the learned Court of the Additional District And Sessions Judge (FTC), Hojai, Sankardev Nagar had rejected the applications filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) which was filed for setting aside the ex-parte judgment passed on the 30.08.2013. The learned Court had also rejected the application for staying the execution proceedings and for recall of the warrant of arrest against him. 4. This Court has duly perused the records which were placed before this Court pursuant to orders being passed. From a perusal of the record there is nothing mentioned as regards the service upon the petitioner who was the opposite party No. 3 in the said proceedings. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that without there being a specific order to proceed ex-parte against the opposite party No. 3 or other opposite parties in the said proceedings, the learned Court below could not have proceeded with the adjudication of the proceedings. It is further seen that from the impugned order dated 26.06.2015 that the application was rejected on the ground that the said petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was at a belated stage. The said aspect in the opinion of this Court is a very hyper technical approach taken by the learned Court below. 5. Taking into account that the reasons were duly assigned in the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code stating inter alia that on receipt of the summons issued by the Bakijai Officer, Nagaon on 16.05.2015, the petitioner had taken steps, this Court is of the opinion Page No.# 3/3 that this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.06.2015 is set aside and quashed. 6. This Court further allows the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code which has been registered as petition No. 1378/2015 and set aside the ex-parte judgment passed on 30.08.2013. 7. The Registry is further directed to remit the records to the learned Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar who either by himself or shall assign the said case to an appropriate Court for decision afresh after effecting service upon all the parties. 8. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant