- (1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 22nd December, 2011 passed by the Learned District Judge, Darjeeling in O.C. Appeal No. 12 of 2005 affirming the judgement and decree dated 25th November, 2005 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darjeeling in O.C. Suit No. 19 of 1993, at the instance of the defendants/appellants. This appeal will be heard on the following substantial questions of law. I. Whether the principle of natural justice was violated in this case by not affording an opportunity to the defendants either to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses or to examine the defendants' own witnesses or not II. Whether the defendants were deprived of contesting the said suit effectively as no lawyer of the local bar accepted the brief on behalf of the defendants due to a resolution adopted by the local Bar Association that no lawyer of Darjeeling Bar Association will appear in a case where any lawyer of the local bar and or the members of their family are involved or not
(2.) The parties are closely related to each other. The defendant no.1 is the stepbrother of the plaintiff no.1. The defendant no.2 is the stepsister of the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff no.2 is the subsequent purchaser of the suit premises from the plaintiff no.1. Admittedly, the plaintiff no.1 was the owner of the property. She got this property by allotment in the partition effected between the co-sharers. The defendants were inducted in the suit premises by the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff no.1 claims that the defendants were inducted as a licensee under her on payment of licence fees of Rs. 800/- per month.
(3.) Since the defendants did not vacate the suit premises after revocation of the licence, the instant suit was filed. The defendants appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement taking the plea that they are the tenants under the plaintiff no.1 in respect of the suit premises. Thus, the only issue which was involved in the suit, was as to whether the defendants are tenants under the plaintiff no.1 or they are licensees under the plaintiff no.1. The suit for eviction of the defendant on revocation of her licence was filed by the plaintiff no.1 in 1993. Repeated adjournments were taken by the defendants/appellants. Even on the day when a date was fixed for cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiff being P.W.1, the defendants prayed for an adjournment. Prayer for adjournment was rejected. The plaintiffs were directed to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses. They did not do so. As a result, the evidence of the plaintiffs' witnesses was closed. Even the defendants did not examine their witnesses in the suit. Ultimately, the suit was heard ex parte against the defendants as they did not participate in the trial of the suit after the closer of the plaintiffs' evidence. The said suit was decreed. The plaintiffs got a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit property from the defendants. A decree in preliminary form for mesne profit @ Rs. 800/- per month was also passed against the defendants from 1st April, 1993 till the date of delivery of the suit property to the plaintiffs, with a rider that final decree as regards mesne profit will be made after an enquiry to be made after recovery of possession of the suit premises by the plaintiffs.;