PADA ACHARJEE Vs. HARI PADA ACHARJEE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the decree passed by the Assistant District Judge Tinsukia in Tital Suit No. 16 of 1987. On 4.12.87, the Assistant District Judge, in Title Suit No 16 of 1987, passed the following order:

(2.) The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that order/judgment has been passed under Order 8, rule 10, CPC. Order 8, rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure provides:

(3.) Rule 10 contemplates two contingencies, namely (1) where a party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 fails to present the same within the time permitted by the Court; and (2) where a party from whom a written statement is required under rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure fails to present the same within the time fixed by the Court, under rule 10, when any party fails to present written statement under any of the circumstances stated above, the two courses are open to the Court First, the Court may proceed to pronounce judgment, Secondly, the Court may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.