- (1.) IN spite of service, none appears on behalf of the respondent to oppose the appellants' prayer for condonation of delay. Let the affidavit -of -service filed in Court today be kept with the record. The instant appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. There was 18 days delay in filing this appeal before this Court. Reason for the delay has been explained by the appellants/applicants in this application. It is stated therein that the appellant no.1 who is the husband of the appellant no.2 used to look after the litigation for himself and also on behalf of his wife, the appellant no.2. It is further stated therein that due to the illness of the appellant no.1 during the relevant period, the instant appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Doctor's certificate shows that the appellant no.1 was under his treatment during the relevant time and he was advised to take bed rest for two months. Doctor's advice to take bed rest was recorded in the prescription issued by Dr. Sengupta on 10th November, 2013.
(2.) AFTER considering such uncontroverted averments made by the appellants/applicants in the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the reason for the delay has been sufficiently explained by the applicants in this application. Accordingly, delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Let the appeal now be registered. The application for condonation of delay being CAN 420 of 2014 is thus disposed of. Re: F.M.A.T. 1581 of 2013
(3.) THIS first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 37 dated 7th September, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Barasat in Misc. Case No. 198 of 2009 whereby the defendants' application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Hence, the instant first miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellants and considered the materials on record. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Trial Judge rejected the defendants' said application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that no explanation has been given by the defendants about their absence on 2nd July, 2009 which was the date fixed for hearing of the said suit ex parte. In this regard, we have considered the defendants' application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a whole, but, we are unable to find out the reason which prevented the appellants from appearing before the Court when the said suit was fixed for ex parte hearing. The defendants have not assigned any reason for their absence before the learned Trial Court on that date.;