- (1.) The order impugned in this revisional application, dated September 14, 2011, passed by a learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Calcutta dismisses the suit instituted by the plaintiff, being the petitioner herein, for default.
(2.) It appears therefrom that the plaintiff/petitioner by filing a petition prayed for an adjournment of peremptory hearing on the ground of his advocate s inability to take steps and also on the ground that a petition for replacement of the receiver had been filed. The first part of the order records that the learned Judge ascertained from the Bench clerk that no application for replacement of the receiver had been filed. He refused the prayer for adjournment on the grounds that no convincing or sufficient reason had been put forth and that there was a direction of the High Court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of communication of its order i.e. within six months from April 20, 2011. After the suit was dismissed for default, the petition for replacement of the receiver was filed, which was directed to be retained with the records.
(3.) Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner, contended that he having prayed for an adjournment, the suit could not have been dismissed for default. According to him, the learned Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. It is prayed that the same be set aside and the learned Judge directed to decide the suit on merits.;