Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010063302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/56/2026 PANKAJ SANITATION AND ANR (BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PRAMOD BHAGAT), A R/O PATHARQUARY, V.I.P. ROAD, KAMRUP (M), NARANGI- 781026, GUWAHATI, ASSAM. 2: PRAMOD BHAGAT PROPRIETOR OF PANKAJ SANITATION R/O PATHARQUARY V.I.P. ROAD KAMRUP (M) NARANGI- 781026 GUWAHATI ASSAM VERSUS SHREE TIMBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND 4 ORS. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AS SUCH BEING REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI PRABHJOT SINGH HUNDEL 2:PRBHJOT SINGH HUNDEL S/O SRI AMARJEET SINGH HUNDEL R/O MAKUM INDUSTRIAL AREA-II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON P.O. AND P.S.- MAKUM JN.- 786170 DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 3:SMT. RANJEET KAUR D/O TARA SINGH R/O MAKUM INDUSTRIAL AREA-II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON P.O. AND P.S.- MAKUM JN.- 786170 DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 4:RAMESH KUMAR SABOO S/O RAM BALLABH SABOO R/O MAKUM INDUSTRIAL AREA-II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON P.O. AND P.S.- MAKUM JN.- 786170 DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 5:AMARJEET SINGH HUNDAL S/O SRI AVATAR SINGH R/O MAKUM INDUSTRIAL AREA-II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON P.O. AND P.S.- MAKUM JN.- 786170 DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, S PAUL,MR S DUTTA,MR. SIDHANT DUTTA,MS S MOCHAHARI Advocate for the Respondent : MR B KAUSHIK (FOR CAVEATOR), P LHAMU (FOR CAVEATOR),MS A M DCOSTA (FOR CAVEATOR),K BHARALI (FOR CAVEATOR),MR. S HAZARIKA (FOR CAVEATOR),MR. P BORAH (FOR CAVEATOR) Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3136/2026 SHREE TIMBER PRODUCTS PVT LTD AND ORS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AS SUCH BEING REPRESENTED BY ONE OF THE ITS DIRECTOR AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI PRABHJOT SINGH HUNDEL RESIDENT OF MAKUM INDUSTRIAL AREA II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON PO AND PS MAKUM J 786170 DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM 2: SRI PRABHJOT SINGH HUNDEL SON OF SRI AMARJEET SINGH HUNDEL RESIDENT OF KAMUM INDUSTRIAL AREA II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON PO AND PS MAKUM J 786170 DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM 3: SMT RANJEET KAUR DAUGHTER OF TARA SINGH RESIDENT OF KAMUM INDUSTRIAL AREA II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON PO AND PS MAKUM J 786170 DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM 4: SRI RAMESH KUMAR SABOO SON OF RAM BALLABH SABOO RESIDENT OF KAMUM INDUSTRIAL AREA II TINGRAI BENGALI GAON PO AND PS MAKUM J 786170 DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM 5: SRI AMARJEET SINGH HUNDAL SON OF SRI AVATAR SINGH RESIDENT OF KAMUM INDUSTRIAL AREA II Page No.# 3/6 TINGRAI BENGALI GAON PO AND PS MAKUM J 786170 DISTRICT TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS PANKAJ SANITATIONS AND ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PRAMOD BHAGAT RESIDENT OF PATHARGURI VIP ROAD KAMRUP METRO NARENGI GUWAHATI 781026 GUWAHATI ASSAM 2:SRI PRAMOD BHAGAT PROPRIETOR OF PANKAJ SANITATION RESIDENT OF PATHARGURI VIP ROAD KAMRUP METRO NARENGI 781026 GUWAHATI ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR B KAUSHIK Advocate for : MR SISHIR DUTTA appearing for PANKAJ SANITATIONS AND ORS :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) No.2, in Misc Appeal No.05/2025 affirming the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tinsukia in Misc (J) Case No.17/2025. 3. The petitioners are the defendants in M.S. 16/2022. They have claimed that they did not receive any notice from the trial court. At the stage of execution of an ex parte decree passed in the aforesaid case, they came to know about the decree passed Page No.# 4/6 against them. 4. By that time, the time limit for filing of the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure had elapsed. Therefore, they filed a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC praying for condonation of delay and for setting aside the decree. 5. That petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.17/2025. 6. Before the trial court, the present petitioners had taken two stands. They claimed that they did not receive any summons from the trial court. On the other hand, they claimed that the person who was looking after the case had gone bedridden. The trial court also found that on behalf of the present petitioners, a particular lawyer had filed petitions before the court and that lawyer prayed for some time to file their written statement. It may be stated that the said lawyer also allegedly claimed that the petitioners had executed Vakalatnama in his favour and this claim of that lawyer has been denied by the petitioners who claimed that they did not engage him to represent them in the court. 7. Be that as it may, that lawyer allegedly representing the present petitioners before the trial court stopped appearing and therefore, the trial court directed the case to proceed ex parte against the present petitioners. 8. The trial court ultimately dismissed the Misc. (J) Case No.17/2025. Thereafter, an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.05/2025 was filed by the present petitioners before the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Tinsukia. 9. The learned appellate court also agreed with the view taken by the learned trial court. 10. Today, the present respondents have filed an Interlocutory Application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for impleading the aforementioned lawyer who allegedly represented the present petitioners before the Page No.# 5/6 trial court as one of the respondents in this revision petition. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 12. The respondents filed the money suit being Money Suit No.16/2022 praying for recovery of ₹18,39,875/- from the present petitioners. 13. This Court is of the opinion that under the given circumstances and for the ends of justice, one opportunity should be given to the present petitioners to contest the money suit before the trial court. It is well settled that courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. A party to a suit cannot be allowed to suffer due to negligence or fault committed by their counsel. 14. In Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe, we do not know, he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself Page No.# 6/6 deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. We direct that the appeal be restored to its original number in the High Court and be disposed of according to law. If there is a stay of dispossession it will continue till the disposal of the matter by the High Court. There remains the question as to who shall pay the costs of the respondent here. As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs 200 should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr A.K. Sanghi. 15. The petitioners herein have claimed that they did not receive any summons from the trial court nor they have engaged any lawyer to defend themselves. This Court has decided to accept this plea taken by the present petitioners. 16. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tinsukia in Money Suit No.16/2022 is set aside. 17. The trial court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Tinsukia is directed to provide one opportunity to the present petitioners to contest the case by filing the written statement subject to payment of a cost of ₹10,000/-. After payment of the cost, the trial court shall accept the written statement and proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with the procedure as laid down by law. The cost of ₹10,000/- shall be paid to the plaintiffs of the case. 18. If the aforesaid directions of this Court are not complied with within a period of 4(four) months from today by the defendants, i.e. the present petitioners, the trial court shall again proceed ex parte against them. With the aforesaid direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. In the result, the connected Interlocutory Application is also disposed of. Send back the trial court record(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant