BASANTA KUMAR NAG CHOUDHURY Vs. BIJIT LAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HERE is an instance of delay in justice mainly due to the lack of application of judicial mind by the Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner brought a suit in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar for partition of the suit property as described in the plaint of the suit among the plaintiff and defendants-opposite parties. The defendants-opposite parties in their written statement objected to the sufficiency of the fees filed by the plaintiff-petitioner and the learned court took up the matter for decision as a preliminary issue as to whether the fees were deficit or sufficient. The issue was settled on 1-11-76 and hearing on this issue was fixed ultimately on 14-12-77, there having been a number of adjournments in between the two dates. Now on 14-12-77 when the matter was taken up for hearing as Issue No. 4. a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner for adjournment of hearing on the ground that the plaintiff was unwell. But the learned trial court dismissed the suit for default after having rejected the petition of adjournment. The relevant order of the learned trial court is reproduced below :

(3.) AGAINST this order of dismissal the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge Silchar, in Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1978. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal on contest by his order dated 11-5-81 and upheld the order passed by the learned trial court in the Misc. case referred to above. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal mainly on the grounds that the plaintiff-appellant, who is petitioner in the present revision case took as many as seven dates for hearing of the suit and that ultimately when the date was fixed on 14-12-77 for hearing of the issue, the adjournment petition was filed by the son of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was suffering from hypertension for which he was unable to attend court, that the medical certificate which was too cryptic and wanting in recording of the blood pressure of the plaintiff inspired no confidence and that even Harendra Kumar Nag Choudhury, son of the plaintiff who had all along been taking steps in the case on behalf of the plaintiff was also found absent on 14-12-77 when the hearing was taken up.