- (1.) These three applications are at the instance of the defendants in the respective title appeals bearing nos.40 of 2002, 41 of 2002 and 42 of 2002 and are directed against the order no.22 dated March 29, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Second Bench, Calcutta.
(2.) Since the common question of law has arisen in the three applications, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2 In order to know the fact of the cases, I am discussing in short the fact of the case of the Title Appeal No.40 of 2002.
(3.) The plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted an ejectment suit for eviction on the ground of default and subletting against the petitioner in the Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta and the petitioner contested the said suit by filing a written statement challenging the materials allegations contained in the plaint. The suit was at the stage of peremptory hearing and on the date of peremptory hearing on February 28, 2002, the defendants/petitioners herein preferred an application for adjournment. That was considered and rejected by the learned Trial Judge. The defendants did not take part subsequently. As a result, the suit was decreed ex parte on that day. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred a Title Appeal being No.40 of 2002. The said Title Appeal was allowed on January 31, 2004 directing the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the three ejectment suits analogously within two months from the date of receipt of the L.C.R. subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to each of the three cases within 15 days from the date of receipt of the record by the learned Court below, in default this order under appeal shall stand vacated and the order of the learned Court below shall stand. The learned lower appellate Court directed to send the L.C.R. along with a xerox copy of the judgment to the lower court at once.;