DEORIS MARBANIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M.F. Quershi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. KS Kynjing, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. K. Khan, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the impugned ex -parte stay order dated 25.02.2015 passed in M.C. No. 10 (T) of 2015 arising out of Review Petition No. 10 (T) of 2015 by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner had instituted a suit being Money Suit No. 24 (T) 2009 in the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for recovery of money against the sports goods supplied to the respondents/defendants. It is also alleged in the present revision petition that the respondents neither filed written statement nor adduced any evidence in the said money suit i.e. Money Suit No. 24 (T) 2009. It is really surprising that the State respondents, who were the defendants in the money suit, did not file written statement nor care to produce any evidence. The trial court after hearing the parties passed the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2011. Against that judgment and decree dated 19.08.2011 of the learned trial court, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 02 (T) 2011 before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong; and that appeal had been re -numbered as FAO No. 16 (T) 2012 (Old) and again as FAO No. 10 (T) 2013 (New). After hearing the parties, learned first appellate court had finally passed the judgment and order dated 19.12.2014 in FAO No. 10 (T) 2013 by dismissing the appeal and thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2011 passed in Money Suit No. 24 (T) 2009.

(3.) AFTER hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that the present petitioner/plaintiff has not yet entered appearance in connection with the said review petition i.e. Review Petition No. 1 (T) 2015 in the court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong (first appellate court). As such, it is clear that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (first appellate court) is yet to decide the review petition. Calling of the records from the first appellate court in the connection with the present revision petition shall cause unnecessary delay in disposal of the Review Petition No. 1 (T) 2015 on merit.