ASIM KUMAR MONDAL,J. - (1.) THE matter is taken for passing order. The Learned Advocate for the applicant/petitioner appeared. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite Party on repeated calls on three consecutive dates. It appears further that the notice has duly served by speed post upon the Opposite Party.
(2.) UNDER the circumstances, heard learned Advocates for the petitioner. This revisional application is directed against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Jangipur, Mursidabad passed in Misc. Case No. 4/2007 being Order No. 42 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to allow the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, in favour of respondent/Opposite Party condoning the delay of about two years in presenting the petition for setting aside the ex-parte order under Rule 9 Order 13 C.P.C. The case of the petitioner in short is that petitioner filed a suit as plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction over a land at Mouza Mirzapur, Khatian No.1099, Dag No. 134/2092 against the present Opposite Parties. The said land was originally belonging to his father and subsequently he inherited the same. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 tried to make illegal construction into the suit property of a Hindu Mandir in the guise of a Hindu Janasadharan of the said locality. The learned Court below in course of hearing of the suit has been pleased to pass ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff on 5.1.2005 declaring the right title and interest in the suit property. Thereafter, after lapse of two years, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C for setting aside of said ex-parte decree with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on 21.3.2007. Learned Court below on hearing both sides and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the parties has been pleased to allow the said petition for condonation of delay, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 500/-.
(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision on the grounds that learned Court below before passing of such impugned order ought to have been taken into consideration the fact that the suit was decreed long back. Further for that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is per-verse and bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Further that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the Opposite Party entered into appearance and contested the suit even through an authorise agents and under such circumstances, the entire liability on proceeding raised on his shoulder as well. Finally, the learned Court below acted mechanically and without application of mind, which is against the principle of natural justice and equity. Upon the case as made out in the application as well as the grounds as formulated, the only point is to be considered in the present application is whether impugned order is illegal and against the principle of natural justice and equity.;