Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Kartick Dutta vs Sri Sambhu Charan Boral & Ors on 11 January, 2019
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
1 11.01.2019
.
Item no. 18.
Court No. 14
ap C.O. No. 871 of 2018
Sri Kartick Dutta
Versus
Sri Sambhu Charan Boral & Ors.
Mr. Goutam Misra.
...For the Petitioner.
The revisionist is aggrieved by order no.26 dated March 8, 2018 passed in Title Suit No. 9759 of 2014 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly Sadar.
It appears that the suit was filed in the year 2014. The suit was set for ex parte hearing on February 2, 2015. Since the defendants had not filed any written statement, despite the fact that the defendants entered appearance in the suit on October 31, 2014. An application for removing the matter from the ex parte board was filed only on January 25, 2018 two years after the written statement was tendered to Court.
It is abundantly clear that the said written statement could not have been accepted by the Court without an application explaining the delay for filing the same and for removal of the matter from the ex parte board.
While noting the deficiencies on the part of the defendants in contesting the suit, the Court in the penultimate paragraph of the second page of the impugned 2 order has held that the plaintiff has not shown diligence in proceeding with the case. This statement is fundamentally contradicts to the findings against the defendants recorded by the Court in the impugned order.
In such circumstances, the impugned order dated March 8, 2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court below to decide afresh under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether the written statement of the petitioner can be accepted and as to whether the delay in filing the application explaining the reasons for non-filing of the written statement within time as also the application for removal of the matter from the ex parte board can be entertained.
The court below shall pass a reasoned order in that regard.
The matter as directed hereinabove shall be considered by the Court below within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order mandatorily.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. 3 (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)