Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Rina Bhattacharjee & Ors vs Malay Bhattacharjee on 16 December, 2019
Author: Biswajit Basu
Bench: Biswajit Basu
1 ML 41 Dt. 02.12.19 sandip Ct. 18 16.12.19
C.O. No. 4084 of 2017 + CAN 10384 of 2019 Smt. Rina Bhattacharjee & Ors.
Vs. Malay Bhattacharjee Mr. Chandra Bhanu Sinha, Mr. Rohit Kumar Shaw ... For the petitioners. Mr. Tarak Nath Halder ... For the opposite party. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
Re : CAN 10384 of 2019 This is an application for restoration of the revisional application which was dismissed for default on September 20, 2019.
Perused the application.
Sufficient grounds have been shown by which the petitioners were prevented from appearing before this Court when the matter was called on for hearing.
The order dated September 20, 2019 is therefore recalled. C.O. 4084 of 2017 is restored to it's original file and number. CAN 10384 of 2019 is thus disposed of. No order as to costs.
2Re : C.O. 4084 of 2017 The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is taken up for hearing by consent of the parties. The petitioners have suffered an ex parte decree of eviction and have filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said decree, registered as Misc. Case No. 11 of 2010.
In the said misc. case the recording of the evidence of the petitioners witness is going on. The learned trial Judge due to repeated attempt of the petitioners to delay the recording of such evidence and in view of the direction of this Court to conclude the hearing of the said misc. case within the time specified in the said direction by the order dated May 18, 2017 closed the evidence of P.W. 2.
The petitioners filed an application for recalling of the said order which the learned trial Judge after taking into consideration of the said conduct of the petitioners and the said direction of this Court has dismissed by the order impugned. The course adopted by the learned trial Judge is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V. SMITHA RANI Vs. M.K. GIRISH reported in (2009) 17 SCC 660. This Court therefore does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned.
3C.O. 4084 of 2017 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)