PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THIS application is at the instance of the defendant and is filed against the Order No.60 dated June 28, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No.121 of 2005 thereby rejecting the show cause filed by the defendant/petitioner herein and fixing the date of ex parte hearing of the said suit. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.
(2.) UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendant/petitioner herein for partition and other consequential reliefs in the year 2005. Summons was duly served but the defendant/petitioner herein did not contest the suit and accordingly, the said suit was decreed ex parte on August 22, 2006 in the preliminary form. Thereafter as per preliminary decree a Commissioner was appointed and while Commissioner was holding commission for partition of the suit property according to the preliminary decree, the defendant appeared and filed a misc. case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said misc. case was dismissed on contests. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal being F.A.T. No.147 of 2011 which was disposed of on November 29, 2011. In the meantime, the learned Commissioner submitted his report and the final decree for partition was passed in the said title suit. Accordingly, while allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Court directed as follows: - 1) That the matter shall be heard afresh giving a chance to the defendant to file a written statement within a period of one week from date, i.e., December 6, 2011; 2) That upon hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Judge shall pass a preliminary decree within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order; and 3) That the final decree for partition should be passed within six months therefrom.
(3.) IN spite of the time -framed order, the defendant/petitioner herein did not take prompt action. However, the hearing of the suit was fixed on August 27, 2012 with intimation to the parties that no adjournment would be given to either party. On August 27, 2012 the plaintiff filed Hazira along with suggestive issues and fresh Vakalatnama. But the defendant did not take any steps on that day. The said case was adjourned to September 19, 2012 for filing a show cause to the defendant as to why the instant suit should not be heard ex parte against him. On that day, i.e., on September 19, 2012 again the matter was adjourned directing the defendant/petitioner herein to file a show cause on November 19, 2012 and on that day as usual the defendant was also absent without any steps. He did not file any show cause.;