- (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against order dated 29/8/2005 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2004, arising out of Ejectment Suit No. 174 of 2002. By the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed an application under Order IX Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code dated 30/1/2004 (hereafter the said application) filed by the plaintiff/opposite party (hereafter the plaintiff) and thereby, restored the ejectment suit to its original file and number.
(2.) PERUSAL of this application reveals that Ejectment Suit No. 529 of 1996 was instituted by the plaintiff against the petitioner (hereafter the defendant) seeking his eviction, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement. In due course of time, the suit was transferred to the learned Chief Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta by operation of law and was renumbered Ejectment Suit No. 174 of 2002. Ultimately, the learned Chief Judge transferred the suit to the learned Judge of the 6th Bench for disposal. The plaintiff appeared before the learned Judge, 6th Bench on 17/4/2002 and filed his hazira, whereupon for framing of issues 12/6/2002 was fixed as the next date. Issues were framed on 12/06/2002, and 23/7/2002 was fixed for discovery and inspection of documents. On 23/7/2002, the plaintiff did not take any step, whereas the defendant prayed for time. Hearing was adjourned till 2/9/2002. Hearing was again adjourned on 2/9/2002 since the plaintiff did not take any step and on the prayer of the defendant, 14/11/2002 was fixed for discovery and inspection, as last chance. Since the learned Judge had been transferred, there was no progress on 14/11/2002 except that 16/1/2003 was fixed for discovery and inspection. On 16/1/2003, the plaintiff again did not appear and considering the fact that no step was taken on his behalf, the learned Judge was pleased to call upon him to show cause by 17/3/2003 as to why the suit should not be dismissed. Since neither cause was shown nor the plaintiff appeared on 17/3/2003, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff then filed the said application on 17/6/2004 together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, giving rise to Misc. Case No. 31 of 2004. It was pleaded in the said application that the plaintiff was not aware of transfer of the suit from the City Civil Court, Calcutta to the Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta. Not only that, his lawyer was also not informed regarding such transfer. Due to lack of information about transfer of the suit, none could appear on behalf of the plaintiff to press it, resulting in the same being dismissed for default on 17/3/2003. In so far as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, the plaintiff pleaded that only on 19/1/2004, he came to learn of the order dated 17/3/2003 dismissing the suit for default and, accordingly, prayed for condonation of delay in presentation of the said application.
(3.) THE defendant opposed the said application filed by the plaintiff by filing written objection. Upon hearing the parties, the order impugned was passed. The learned Judge was of the view that a liberal view ought to be taken for ends of justice and restored the suit to its original file and number upon condonation of delay.;