Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010076742026 2026:GAU-AS:7517 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/54/2026 SMT RINI DEB AND ANR WIFE OF SRI NOVJYOTI DEB, RESIDENT OF SREE DURGA SARANI, MEHERPUR, BELTOLA, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM 2: NOVJYOTI DEB SON OF LATE NIRMALENDU DEB RESIDENT OF SREE DURGA SARANI MEHERPUR BELTOLA P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSA VERSUS SMT PUSPANJALI CHANDA WIFE OF SRI BIMAL KUMAR CHANDA, D/O LATE KARUNAMOY SEAL, RESIDENT OF CHANDMARI ROAD, TARAPUR, SILCHAR TOWN, P.O.- TARAPUR, SILCHAR- 788003, P.S.- SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, MS D.CHAKRABARTY Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 29.05.2026 Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By filing this application under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 31.03.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, thereby allowing Misc.J. Case No. 50/2022, in T.S. No. 98/2018, filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, resulting in setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 20.12.2018 passed in T.S. No. 98/2018. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by way of an additional affidavit filed on 12.05.2026, the petitioners have brought on record a copy of the order dated 30.10.2018, passed in T.S. No. 98/2018, wherein the summons issued to the respondent (defendant No. 2) was held to have been duly served as per the process server’s report and as the respondent did not appear and contest the proceedings, by order dated 30.10.2018, the learned trial Court ordered the suit to proceed ex parte against the respondent (defendant No. 2). 4. By referring to the statement made in paragraph- 6 of this application, it is submitted that the address at which the summons was served in T.S. No. 98/2018 is the same address as referred to by the respondent in T.S. No. 62/2017, later renumbered as T.S. No. 79/2021. Accordingly, it is submitted that the plea of the respondent that the summons was fraudulently served does not carry any weight. It is submitted that no fraud was committed by the petitioners Page No.# 3/5 in serving notice at the same address, which was disclosed in T.S. No. 62/2017. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the defendant No. 1 in the suit also did not contest the proceedings despite service of notice and it is surprising that though the respondent claims to have no knowledge of the ex parte decree, but she had suddenly filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and disclosed a fictitious date of 30.03.2022, on which she allegedly got knowledge of the said ex parte decree dated 20.12.2018 without stating how she got the knowledge. It is also submitted that the respondent has not adduced any evidence and therefore, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, ought not to have allowed the application. 6. On a perusal of the documents appended to this application, it is noticed that the respondent has taken a plea that the summons of the suit was served on a fictitious person, namely, Pushpanjali Sarkar, and thus, an ex parte decree was obtained and she had denied putting her signature on the summons. 7. It appears from the contents of the order dated 31.03.2026 that the learned trial Court had referred to certain documentary exhibits. Thus, it appears that some evidence was recorded in connection with Misc.J. Case No. 50/2022. 8. The learned trial Court has referred to Ext. 8, which was issued by the Secretary, Meherpur Gaon Panchayat, stating that the respondent, daughter of Late Karunamoy Shill, of Kuwarpur, Meherpur, was married on 01.03.1991 to Bimal Kumar Chanda, a resident of Durganagar, Tarapur. The said Court has also Page No.# 4/5 referred to Ext. 9, which is a copy of the Pension Payment Order, Ext. 13, copy of the Passport, Ext. 14, copy of Aadhaar card, Ext. 15, copy of the Electoral Photo Identity Card, and thereby the respondent had denied the address given in the process server’s report (Ext. 17). Accordingly, the learned Court had arrived at a conclusion that the signature of the respondent in the process server’s report [Ext. 17(1)] does not tally with the signature of the respondent. 9. Accordingly, the ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.12.2018, and the decree that was drawn up on 04.01.2019 were set aside and the proceedings of T.S. No. 98/2018 was restored to file. 10. There is no material in this application to show that any effective evidence was tendered by the petitioners to deny the projection of the respondent that she was not a resident of the place where the summons was served. 11. The petitioners had an opportunity to counter the stand of the respondent by producing the records of T.S. No. 62/2017, but the impugned order does not show that the same was done. 12. Accordingly, the Court in exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, would not take note of any additional fact which was hitherto not placed into service before the learned trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 31.03.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, thereby allowing Misc.J. Case No. 50/2022 in T.S. No. 98/2018, cannot be shown to be perverse or contrary to the established principles of law. 14. Accordingly, this Court is disinclined to entertain this application and Page No.# 5/5 accordingly this application stands dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondent. 15. The Registry shall transmit a downloaded copy of this order to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, to be made a part of the record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant