logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 098 print Preview print Next print
Case No : CRP No. 16 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Parties : Matrika Prasad Debbarma Versus Rupali Debbarma
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Saikat Sarkar, Uttara Singha, Advocates. For the Respondent: None.
Date of Judgment : 18-02-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 14(3) -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

2. Catch Words:
- Adjournment
- Written objection
- Civil Revision
- Documentary evidence
- Conduct of case

3. Summary:
The petitioner, a defendant in a civil suit, challenged the orders of the Civil Judge allowing the plaintiff’s application to file additional documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. The defendant repeatedly sought adjournments to file a written objection but failed to do so despite multiple opportunities. The trial court rejected further adjournment requests and permitted the plaintiff to summon witnesses for evidence. The defendant filed this revision, blaming their advocate for the delay, but the court held the party responsible for the conduct of their case. No merit was found in the revision.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. This Revision is filed challenging the orders dt. 05.11.2025 and 22.01.2026 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.T.S.(P)20 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is defendant in the suit. The plaintiff, during course of the trial, had filed an application for filing certain documents invoking Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC.

3. On 07.03.2025, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner/defendant the matter was adjourned to 03.05.2025 for filing written objection to the said application.

4. On that date no written objection was filed and time was sought and the matter was adjourned to 26.08.2025.

5. On 26.08.2025, again adjournment request was made by petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 05.11.2025 for filing the written objection.

6. On 05.11.2025 also no written objection was filed. Therefore, the application for receiving documents was ordered, rejecting the request for further adjournment after taking note that matter had been adjourned at the instance of the defendant/petitioner more than once.

7. In the order dt. 05.11.2025, the Court below permitted the plaintiff to summon the Deputy Collector and Magistrate, Agartala Revenue Circle, Sadar and also to give evidence touching the documents filed by the plaintiff and the Court fixed the date to 22.01.2026 for examination and cross examination of PWs.

8. On 22.01.2026, after hearing submission of the parties under the request of the witnesses, the matter was adjourned and the case was posted to 19.02.2026.

9. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.

10. Though counsel for the petitioner seeks to blame petitioner’s advocate in the Court below for not filing the written objection, the fact remains that from March, 2025 till November, 2025 on three different dates, time had been given for filing the written objection. It is not permissible for the party to blame the advocate and absolve himself from all responsibility with regard to conduct of the case.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in the Revision and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application/s, if any, also stands dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal