- (1.) THIS Rule arises out of an order made by the Second Additional Munsif, Alipore, Sri S. P. Dutta, on the 18th June, 1964, striking off the petitioner's defence against delivery of possession in the suit for eviction. This order striking out the defence was made under section 17 (3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The Rule was issued on the 7th July, 1964. By that Rule ad interim stay of execution was granted. The Second Additional Munsif at Alipore then took an extraordinary step. On the 10th July, 1964 he passed two orders-one refusing to stay the suit in spite of the fact that a petition was filed before him on the 8th July, 1964 with the usual Advocate's letter intimating that a Rule had been issued by this High Court and that an ad interim stay of further proceedings in the suit had been granted by this Court pending the hearing of the Rule on the 7th July, 1964. The learned Munsif did not stop by that order. He passes a second order on the same day calling the suit for hearing, and naturally as no one appeared he dismissed for default the plaintiff's Title Suit No. 151 of 1964 which was pending in his Court. When the matter came up before this Court, the learned Advocate on either side pointed out to the extraordinary step taken by this Munsif, whereupon this Court on the 25th August, 1964 by an order directed the District Judge of 24-Parganas, within whose jurisdiction this Munsif functions, to obtain and forward to this Court within a fortnight from date an explanation from this Munsif why he had refused to stay and why he had dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Pursuant to that order from this Court the learned District Judge has furnished the Munsif's explanation to this Court.
(2.) THE relevant portion of the explanation of the Munsif reads as follows:- "the petition supported by an affidavit and a lawyer's letter, filed by the defendant was not moved. The matter as usual was taken up after recess when a good number of interlocutory matters are heard. Many petitions are filed, but some are not moved. As I am to dispose of many interlocutory matters then and there, it is not possible for me to go through the contents of a petition which is not moved. I did not, therefore, peruse the contents of the petition in question. I was under the impression that it was a simple petition for time. Further this is the solitary instance in my court where this type of petition was supported by an affidavit. As my attention was not drawn to this fact, so I had not the least idea about the affidavit sworn in this case. Consequently I was not aware of the issue of any Rule by the Hon'ble Court in this suit. The suit was dismissed for default because both the parties were found absent on repeated calls. Whatever I did in this case I did so bona fide and in complete ignorance of the fact that a Rule was issued by the Hon'ble Court. I am extremely sorry for the orders which were passed by me unwittingly after the said Rule was obtained by the defendant. I once again express my sincere regret for what had happened through inadvertence and I beg to be excused therefor. "
(3.) THE explanation quoted above shows a very sorry state of affairs. If petitions are dismissed without looking into them on the ground that many interlocutory matters are to be disposed of, then a halt has got to be put to this kind of practice. How can a Judge dismiss an application without looking into it and without even caring to know what is in the application? Is this speed in disposal of cases? Or is it travesty of justice? To dispose of an application only by "the impression that it was a simple petition for time" when in fact it was a petition conveying the High Court's order for stay has led to grave injustice. The Munsif should not dispose of an application without reading it and without knowing what it is about. This Court expresses its great disapproval of and displeasure at the mode in which the Munsif dismissed the suit and the application only by a fancied 'impression' and not by reading what it was about.;