Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010064002026 2026:GAU-AS:5240 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/106/2026 RAJU HAZARIKA SON OF RAMESH CH. HAZARIKA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PATIDOIVERELA, P.O.- GORUBANDHA, P.S.- MISSAMARI, IN THE DISTRICT OF SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 784506. PRESENTLY POSTED AT UDALGURI POLICE STATION, UDALGURI, DISTRICT- UDALGURI, PIN CODE- 784550, ASSAM VERSUS GOUTAM TAMANG SON OF LATE DAWA TAMANG, RESIDENT OF JANGLI BASTI, P.O. AND P.S.- MAHUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF DIMA HASAO, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 788830 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MR. S S A RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 08.04.2026 Heard Mr. S. S. S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 19.01.2026; passed by the learned Page No.# 2/3 Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Dima Hasao, passed in Money Suit No. 01/2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 19.01.2026, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No. 1, Dima Hasao (hereinafter, learned Trial Court), has decided to proceed against the petitioner ex-parte, as notice upon the petitioner, deemed to have been served, in view of the petition under Order 5 Rule 15 of the CPC. 4. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the respondent in the Money Suit No. 01/2025, and in the said money suit, notice was issued to the petitioner, who is serving as a Constable in Assam Police, at Udalguri, and at the relevant point of time, he was not at his native place and the summon issued to him was received by his sister, who according to Mr. Rahman, did not inform him at Udalguri, for which, the petitioner could not turn up and appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed; and that the petitioner will appear and contest the suit and as such, he has contended to interfere with the impugned order, dated 19.01.2026. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and perused the impugned order, dated 19.01.2026. 6. It appears that notice was issued to the petitioner herein at his permanent address and also, at this present address and the notice issued to him at the permanent address has returned with a report that his sister had received the notice, for which, the learned Trial Court had held that in view of the Order 5 Rule 15 CPC, notice is deemed to have been served upon the petitioner herein and as he had failed to turn up, the learned Trial Court has decided to proceed against him ex-parte. Page No.# 3/3 7. Under the given facts and circumstances on record and also, in view of the submission advanced by Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioner to file an application before the learned Trial Court to vacate the order, dated 19.01.2026, before the next date fixed; assigning the reasons for his failing to appear before the learned Trial Court on that date, i.e., 19.01.2026, and on such petition being filed by the petitioner, the learned Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law; especially, keeping in mind the contention of the petitioner that though, summon was received by his sister, the same was not communicated to him, as at the relevant time, he was serving at Udalguri. 8. In terms of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of at its motion stage itself. 9. Consequently, the impugned order, dated 19.01.2026, stands interfered with, to the extent indicated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant