Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) At the very outset, this Court notices that in the cause title of this application, the defendant No. 3 has been described as respondent No. 1 and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2/pro forma respondents have again been described as respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion these two defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who have been shown as pro forma respondents will be referred to as the pro forma respondent Nos. 1 and 2 hereinafter.
(2.) This revision is directed against the Order dated 24.1.2006 passed in Title Appeal No. 58 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge, Vth Bench, City Civil Court, Kolkata allowed the respondent No. 1 herein to serve notice upon the pro forma respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the address given by him and proceeded to fix 23.2.2006 awaiting service report. The revision application is also directed against the Order dated 4.1.2006 passed by the same learned Judge whereby and whereunder he recorded that the bailiff had reported that the pro forma respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had left the suit premises and as such, he was unable to serve summons upon them. Although he held that the summons had thus been duly served, yet, on account of the report of the bailiff and for the ends of justice, the learned Court below allowed the prayer for time.
(3.) The facts of the case which could be gathered from the pleadings as well as the documents appended/produced are that these petitioners are the transferee landlords and joint owners of premises situated at 53, Ripon Street (now Mujaffar Ahmed Street, P.S. Park Street in the city of Kolkata. It is stated that they are pursuing the litigation in the capacity of substituted plaintiffs in an Ejectment Suit No. 688 of 1994 which was subsequently transferred to the Small Causes Court at Kolkata and renumbered as Ejectment Suit No. 2712 of 2000.;