Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Sukanta Chakrabarty, learned Advocate, being assisted by Ms. Baishali Sharma representing the petitioners and Mr. Jaydip Kar, learned Senior Advocate being assisted by Mr. Anirban Kar representing the opposite parties.
(2.) Hearing is concluded and the case is taken up for recording the order.
(3.) Mr. Chakrabarty of course by remaining within the materials on record and with his utmost ability submitted that the learned Appeal Court wrongly observed as follows:- "Practically on hearing the argument of both side this Forum finds that the execution of eviction of the appellant-defendant on the suit property already has been made and this respondent acquired a right on the property by execution during passage of time. More to say on going through entire judgment of the court below I find Ld. Court below elaborately discussed on the entire evidence of Misc Case and correctly cleared out all the loopholes of this appellant-defendant as exposed by trial of Misc Case. He correctly find out with the help of evidence of medical officer that complete bed rest was at all suggested at his prescriptions dated 16/9/10, 08/06/10 and 20/11/09 and this medical certificate itself showed that the appellant-defendant was bed ridden condition as stated by him. I further find that as per Bengal Medical Act 1914 Ld. Court observed that signature of the patient as mandatory one under the certificate and authentication of it by the medical officer which was lack in the respective prescriptions of the defendant. So, on scrutiny of evidence board from the LCR I find no infirmity in the observation of court below that the petition under Order 9, Rule 13 lacked on merit and it is nothing but a gross negligence from the part of the appellant-defendant to conduct the suit.;