S.SERTO, J. - (1.) This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India read with Section- 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22/09/2015 of the Political Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, passed in monetary dispute, MISC/POL- Case No. 07/2015, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs) to (the respondent (petitioner in that case) and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) for his non appearance in the case, and also praying for setting aside the order dated 11/12/2015, DC/MS/GEN-15 of the same authority wherein the General Manager, BSNL, Dimapur was directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) from the monthly pension of the petitioner till the above stated amount is realized or recovered.
(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the institution of this civil revision petition are as follows:- The respondent filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur stating that her elder sister Late Protima Saikia along with the petitioner had jointly taken a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) from a society namely Azalimi Society Ltd. of Naharbari Village in Dimapur on 16th December, 2009 by mortgaging a plot of land with the building standing therein which belongs to her elder brother, and the loan amount which had accumulated to Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen lakhs) with interest accrued there to has been paid by her sister Late Protima Saikia with the assurance of the petitioner and his wife that they will share the liabilities. But since they have not done as promised, she has approached the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action for recovery of the amount from the petitioner(respondent in that petition) to the extent of his liability in that loan. After the application was submitted, it was endorsed to the Political Assistant,who then took up the matter by registering the same as MISC/POL Case No. 7/2015. Thereafter, the Political Assistant issued summon to the petitioner three times. When the petitioner/respondent did not appear the Political Assistant passed the impugned judgment and order dated 22/09/2015 wherein, as stated above the petitioner in this revision petition was directed to pay the sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs) to the respondent (petitioner in that case) and also to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) as fine for his non appearance before the Political Assistant in defiance of the summon issued to him. When the said amounts were not deposited by the petitioner(respondent in that case), the Political Assistant passed another order on 11-12-2015 wherein the DGM BSNL, Dimapur was directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) every month from the pension of the petitioner and submit the same in the Court of Political Assistant for further depositing of the same in the bank account of the respondent. The petitioner having been aggrieved has filed this revision petition on the ground, mainly, that he did not receive copies of the summons issued to him, as such, the said judgment and order were passed without giving him the opportunity of being heard.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is submitted both in the petition of the petitioner and in the oral submission of his learned counsel that the petitioner never receive the summons issued to him and, in fact, he came to know of the case only on 25/07/2016 when the office of the BSNL informed him regarding the order dated 11/12/2015 of the Political Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur wherein the DGM BSNL, Dimapur was directed to deduct a sum of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight thousand) every month from his pension. It is also submitted that the loan was taken by the sister of the respondent (petitioner in that case) and the petitioner only stood as her guarantor, and since the loan has been settled/liquidated he has been relieved of any liability. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner did receive copies of the summons and, in fact, the last summon was delivered by the officer of the court to his wife, therefore, there is no question of the impugned judgment and order having been passed without giving the opportunity of being heard to him. The learned counsel also submitted that the petition is barred by limitation as the same was filed only after about a year from the date the impugned judgment and order were passed, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. ;