Arun Kumar Bhattacharya, J - (1.) The hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioner praying for revision of the order dated 31.8.1998 (wrongly written as 31.9.98) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No. 178 of 1998 by way of setting aside the same.
(2.) The circumstances leading to the present application are that the present petitioner filed a Misc. Case under Order'9 Rule 9 C.P. Code in the Court of learned Munsif, 4th Court, Sealdah. On the date of final hearing the said Misc. Case, his learned Advocate could not attend due to admission of his wife in a nursing home for delivery and so sent a petition for time which was endorsed as "seen" by the learned Advocate for the o.p. But on the following day the Misc. Case was found to have been dismissed for default. The Misc. Appeal preferred against the said order was disposed of by the impugned order dismissing the same on contest with cost. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.
(3.) All that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Court below was justified in passing the aforesaid order. As none appeared on behalf of the O.P., the revisional application was heard ex p e. ;