Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010272122018 2026:GAU-AS:6638 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/193/2018 DIBRUGARH HANUMANBUX SURAJMAL KANOI COMMERCE COLLEGE AND ANR. DIBRUGARH, ESTABLISHED AND CONSTITUTED UNDER DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY ACT, 1965 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY, DR. KHANINDRA MISRA BHAGAWATI, DIBRUGARH HANUMANBUX SURAJMAL KANOI COMMERCE COLLEGE, DIBRUGARH, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786001. 2: KHANINDRA MISRA BHAGAWATI THE PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY DIBRUGARH HANUMANBUX SURAJMAL KANOI COMMERCE COLLEGE DIBRUGARH DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786001 VERSUS TARUN CHANDRA GOGOI AND 14 ORS. (C) SON OF LATE MUKTI NATH GOGOI, R/O. BANIPUR, BYE LANE NO. 2, P.O. BANIPUR, P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786002. 2:ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI WIFE OF LATE ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 3:MADHYRJA GOGOI SON OF LATE ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 PIN- 786002. 4:SMTI. NILIMA GOGOI WIFE OF SRI ARUN CHANDRA GOGOI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 5:SUSIL SAIKIA SON OF MEGHNATH SAIKAI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 6:KAMAL GOGOI SON OF UNKNOWN RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 7:PRANAB GOGOI SON OF LATE BHAGYESWAR GOGOI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 8:ARUN GOGOI SON OF LATE DHAJEN GOGOI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 9:BARUN CHANDRA GOGOI SON OF LATE MUKUT CHANDRA GOGOI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 10:BIPUL CHELLENG RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM Page No.# 3/8 PIN- 786002. 11:GIRINDRA NATH KONWAR SON OF SRI PABITRA KONWAR RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 12:HARINARAYAN KEOT SON OF SRI MAHABIR KEOT RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 13:NARAYAN KEOT SON OF SRI MAHABIR KEOT RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 14:SUSIL SAIKIA SON OF MEGHNATH SAIKIA RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002. 15:SMTI OMEN MENTHOM DEORI WIFE OF LATE TANKESWAR DEORI RESIDENT OF BANIPUR P.S. AND DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA, MR. B B KAKATI,MR. S SHARMA,MR D BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P J SAIKIA (R1, R4, R5, R7, R9), MR. A K GUPTA (R1, R4, R5, R7, R9),MS M NIROLA (R1, R4, R5, R7, R9) Page No.# 4/8 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER 12/05/2026 Heard Mr. N. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 & 9. 2. There are 15 (fifteen) respondents, but though notice was served in a substituted manner by publication in a newspaper, none appeared on call for the remaining respondents. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 37/2006. The learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, in its judgment dated 02.07.2009, mentioned that the summons to the defendants were served, but they did not appear to contest the proceedings and accordingly, the suit was proceeded ex parte against the defendants. 4. Being aggrieved, the defendant No. 6, who is the respondent No. 1 in the instant revision, filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 02.07.2009, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 21/2013. However, the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, by an order dated 30.09.2014, rejected the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Accordingly, the respondent filed Misc. Appeal No. 12/2014 and the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh by the judgment and order dated 06.09.2018, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 8/2017, allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree and the suit was remanded back before the learned Trial Court for an expeditious disposal. Page No.# 5/8 5. The petitioners (plaintiffs), being aggrieved by the said appellate judgment and order dated 06.09.2018, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 8/2017 by the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC. 6. On perusal of the records of the learned Trial Court, this Court noticed that in one of the service reports, where the summons was made returnable on 15.11.2007, the process server has given a report that on 14.11.2007, he had gone to the address of the respondent No. 1 for service and people in the locality informed that the person resides at Kakopathar and did not know his address at Kakopathar and accordingly, was unable to serve notice of summons and the summons was returned to the learned Trial Court. The address of the respondent No. 1 in the said notice is clearly stated to be ‘Banipur, Dibrugarh, P.O., P.S. & District-Dibrugarh’. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pursuant to the orders of the learned Trial Court, summons were served on the respondent No. 1 in a substituted manner by publication in a newspaper. 8. In the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, it is noticed that the permanent address of the respondent No. 1 is ‘No. 3 Kakopathar, P.S. Kakopathar, District-Tinsukia’ and his present address is ‘Banipur Bye Lane No. 2, P.O. Banipur, P.S. & District-Dibrugarh, Assam’. It is not even the case of the petitioners that the address shown by the respondent No. 1 in the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is the same address as given in the plaint. 9. Therefore, it appears that by giving a vague address, a suit has been filed Page No.# 6/8 by the present petitioners. 10. Under these circumstances, when the address of the respondent No. 1 is not proper, this Court does not expect the respondent No. 1 to read a newspaper and presume that the notice published in the name of Tarun Chandra Gogoi was meant for him. 11. This is an appropriate case, where it would be in the interest of justice to quote the provisions of Rule 14A of Order VI of the CPC, which reads as under: “14A. Address for service of notice.—(1) Every pleading, when filed by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in rule 14, regarding the address of the party. (2) Such address may, from time to time, be changed by lodging in Court a form duly filled up and stating the new address of the party and accompanied by a verified petition. (3) The address furnished in the statement made under sub-rule (1) shall be called the “registered address” of the party, and shall, until duly changed as aforesaid, be deemed to be the address of the party for the purpose of service of all processes in the suit or in any appeal from any decree or order therein made and for the purpose of execution, and shall hold good, subject as aforesaid, for a period of two years after the final determination of the cause or matter. (4) Service of any process may be effected upon a party at his registered address in all respects as though such party resided thereat. (5) Where the registered address of a party is discovered by the Court to be incomplete. false or fictitious, the Court may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any party, order— (a) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a plaintiff, stay Page No.# 7/8 of the suit, or (b) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a defendant, his defence be struck out and he be placed in the same position as if he had not put up any defence. (6) Where a suit is stayed or a defence is struck out under sub-rule (5), the plaintiff or, as the case may be, the defendant may, after furnishing his true address, apply to the Court for an order to set aside the order of stay or, as the case may be, the order striking out the defence. (7) The Court, if satisfied that the party was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the true address at the proper time, shall set aside the order of stay or order striking out the defence, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit or defence, as the case may be. (8) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the Court from directing the service of a process at any other address, if, for any reason, it thinks fit to do so.]” 12. From the above quoted provisions of law, it is clear that under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 14A of Order VI, where the registered address of a party is discovered by the Court to be incomplete, false or fictitious, the Court has the power, either on its own motion, or on the application of any party, if the address furnished by the plaintiff is incorrect, the suit is liable to be stayed. Therefore, the Court cannot appreciate filing of a plaint with an incorrect or incomplete address. 13. Therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 06.09.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this revision Page No.# 8/8 petition is found devoid of any merit and therefore, stands dismissed. 14. The Registry shall forthwith send back the Trial Court records to the Court of learned District Judge, Dibrugarh, to send it to the appropriate Trial Court for disposal. 15. As the matter has been remanded back to the learned Trial Court, the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 shall positively appear before the office of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Dibrugarh, on 15.06.2026 to obtain information as to the Court in which the matter has been transferred and shall take steps accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant