SILAN LAWRYNIANG Vs. TIMEL SYNREM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 23.03.2017 as passed by the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong in T.S. No. 26 of 2015, whereby the said suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed in default of appearance. The petitioner has also stated the alleged want of action on the part of the Court concerned to expeditiously deal with the application for restoration as filed by him, being Misc. Case No. 225 of 2017.

(2.) This petition was entertained on 26.05.2017 with an interim order that the defendant/respondent shall not disturb the suit premises. However, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K Paul submits today that since after filing of this revision petition, relevant subsequent events have taken place inasmuch as the said application for restoration was ultimately considered and allowed by the Trial Court on 21.09.2017. The learned counsel has placed a copy of the order dated 21.09.2017 for perusal of the Court wherefrom, it is made out that on the application seeking restoration, the defendant/respondent did not appear; and, therefore, the application was allowed and the suit was restored to the file. Obviously, in view of this order of the Trial Court, the grievance as stated in this revision petition no longer survives. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly submits that in view of such developments, the petitioner does not want to press on this revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Shri BK Deb Roy, however, states the predicament that by the said order dated 21.09.2017, the Trial Court not only restored the suit to the file but even set the proceedings in the suit exparte; and this would cause irreparable injury to the defendant/respondent. Shri BK Deb Roy submits that in the given circumstances, the defendant/respondent may be permitted to contest the suit by filing his written statement, which he undertakes to file within a week from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K Paul, in all fairness, has not opposed the prayer made on behalf of the defendant/respondent but with the submissions that the defendant/respondent has not filed the written statement until now and is not entitled to delay the proceedings, and, therefore, if at all the written statement is permitted at this stage, the same ought to be filed at the earliest.