LAWS(GAU)-2009-2-2

J N BAWRI Vs. MOHENDRA KR DUDHORIA

Decided On February 09, 2009
J N Bawri Appellant
V/S
Mohendra Kr Dudhoria Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 (w) read with Order 47 Rule 7 and Section 151 of the CPC, 1908 is directed against the order dated 22. 8. 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shillong in Review Application No. 2 (H) 2007 out of order dated 3. 12. 2007 in FAO No. 2 (H) 2006 passed by the said Court.

(2.) HEARD Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent without any step although notice was duly served on him.

(3.) THE net result of reviewing the order dated 3. 12. 2007 is that, the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the order dated 22. 12. 2005 passed in Misc Case No. 35 (H)2005 to sustain and thereby allowed the orders dated 11. 3. 2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 35 (H)2005 and 22. 12. 2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 22 (H)2004 to stand which goes against the interest of the present appellant. This is the root of the grievance of the appellant inasmuch as he has not been afforded with any opportunity of hearing on the show cause reply filed by him before the learned trial court. Assistant District Judge, Shillong as his prayer for adjournment for two days only was rejected. Mr. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court should have allowed his prayer for adjournment as the appellant had for the first time asked for only two days' adjournment. As the respondent-plaintiff was already granted ad-interim injunction protecting his interest, no hard or prejudice would have been caused to him if the adjournment sought for was granted to him and an opportunity of hearing was granted for the ends of justice. The learned trial Court, without giving any reasonable ground mechanically rejected the prayer for adjournment which is not sustainable under the law. The appellant has been denied reasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter of injunction and he could have established his point before the learned trial court for rejection of the ad-interim injunction order and thereby caused substantial injustice to him.