Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010109772024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1442/2026 MAHARISHI RAM RAJ VEDIC EDUCATION PVT LTD AND ANR A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE ERSTWHILE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND A CONTINUING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING AND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 107 LAXMAN SINGH COMPLEX 1 MUNIRKA NEW DELHI 110067 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI PRASHANTH RAMASAMY 2: SRI PRASHANTH RAMASAMY S/O CHIDAMBARAM RAMASAMY DIRECTOR MAHARISHI RAM RAJ VEDIC EDUCATION PVT. LTD. RESIDENT OF 1 CHELLAMMAL STREET SHENOY NAGAR CHENNAI TAMIL NADU 600030 VERSUS M/S H B ENGINEERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HOUSE NO. 3 KAMALA PATH AMBIKAGIRI NAGAR PO AND PS GEETANAGAR GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781024 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI BINOY MALLA BUZAR BARUAH ------------ Advocate for : MR. S M BARUAH Advocate for : MR A DAS appearing for M/S H B ENGINEERS Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : FAO/40/2024 M/S H B ENGINEERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HOUSE NO. 3 KAMALA PATH, AMBIKAGIRI NAGAR, PO AND PS GEETANAGAR, GUWAHATI , DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781024 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI BINOY MALLA BUZAR BARUAH VERSUS MAHARISHI RAM RAJ VEDIC EDUCATION PVT LTD AND ANR A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE ERSTWHILE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND A CONTINUING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING AND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 107, LAXMAN SINGH COMPLEX 1, MUNIRKA , NEW DELHI 110067 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI PRASHANTH RAMASAMY 2:SRI PRASHANTH RAMASAMY S/O CHIDAMBARAM RAMASAMY DIRECTOR MAHARISHI RAM RAJ VEDIC EDUCATION PVT. LTD. RESIDENT OF 1 CHELLAMMAL STREET SHENOY NAGAR CHENNAI TAMIL NADU 60003 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DAS, MR. T SARMA,MR. N I KHAN,MS. M BORDOLOI,MR. A BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR S M BARUAH, MRS R DEKA Linked Case : CRP(IO)/177/2024 M/S H B ENGINEERS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HOUSE NO. 3 KAMALA PATH AMBIKAGIRI NAGAR PO AND PS GEETANAGAR GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781024 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNER SRI BINOY MALLA BUZAR BARUAH Page No.# 3/5 VERSUS MAHARISHI RAM RAJ VEDIC EDUCATION PVT LTD AND ANR A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE ERSTWHILE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND A CONTINUING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING AND PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 107 LAXMAN SINGH COMPLEX 1 MUNIRKA NEW DELHI 110067 AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI PRASHANTH RAMASAMY 2:SRI PRASHANTH RAMASAMY S/O CHIDAMBARAM RAMASAMY DIRECTOR MAHARISHI RAM RAJ VEDIC EDUCATION PVT. LTD. RESIDENT OF 1 CHELLAMMAL STREET SHENOY NAGAR CHENNAI TAMIL NADU 600030 ------------ Advocate for : MR. A DAS Advocate for : appearing for MAHARISHI RAM RAJ VEDIC EDUCATION PVT LTD AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 13.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. S. M. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the opposite party/applicant. 2. This application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed for setting aside the order dated 07.04.2026 and passed in the connected FAO/40/2024 to the extent that it directed the appeal to proceed ex-parte against the present applicant/respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on 07.04.2026, when the matter was called on for hearing. the engaged Page No.# 4/5 counsel for the applicant/respondent could not appear before the Court, as he was having some health issues. 4. He submits that the ophthalmological ailment with which the counsel was suffering made it impossible to him to appear before the Court on the date when the matter was called for hearing. 5. He submits that there are no latches on the part of the applicant. It was only due to the in-dispossession of the applicant that none could appear before the Court. 6. Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the opposite party/applicant has objected to the prayer on the previous occasion also there was default on the part of the respondent’s counsel. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides. 8. It appears that at one stage during the pendency of the connected appeal, there was an attempt on the part of the both sides to settle the matter amicably however, the effort of settlement could not be materialized. 9. Though, there is a lapse on the part of the engaged counsel for the applicant/respondent to appear before the court when the matter was called on for hearing, however, considering the grounds stated in the paragraph No. 2 of the instant Interlocutory Application to be sufficient ground, which prevented him from appearing before the Court when the matter was called for hearing. 10. The instant Interlocutory Application, is, allowed. Page No.# 5/5 11. The order dated 07.04.2026 passed by this Court in FAO 40/2024 to the extent, it directed the appeal to proceed ex-parte against the present applicant is set aside. JUDGE Comparing Assistant