SATYAPAL SHARMA Vs. LORD JAGANNATH TEMPLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners who is aggrieved by two orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

(2.) By the first order dated 1.3.2017, the petition filed by the present petitioners who are defendants for allowing to file written statement has beenrejected. By the subsequent order dated 12.09.2018, the petition to vacate ex-parte and to allow filing of written statement have been rejected. It may be mentioned that along with the petition filed on 12.09.2018. The written statement was also placed on record by the present petitioners.

(3.) By referring to the plaint, Shri Ali, learned counsel submits that the plaint has been instituted by a Trust while the present petitioners are defendant nos. 2 and 3. Unfortunately, while notice was issued, neither any documents annexed to the plaint nor the plaint itself was furnished to the learned counsel for defendant nos. 2 and 3 or the defendant nos. 2 and 3 themselves.