SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) CAN 2165 of 2018 is treated to be on the day's list, by consent of the parties.
(2.) C.O. No. 3066 of 2017 and C.O. No. 8 of 2018, having arisen from the same lis, are taken up together for hearing. In C.O. No. 3066 of 2017, the petitioner has challenged four orders. Upon a decree being passed in Title Suit No. 71 of 2011, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit upon setting aside the ex-parte decree passed therein as well as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing such restoration application. By the order dated January 30, 2016, the trial court allowed two applications filed by the opposite party nos.1 and 2, one for amendment of the said application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code and another for amendment of the connected application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Upon the present petitioner taking out an application for recalling the order dated January 30, 2016, primarily on the ground that in the said order dated January 30, 2016 it was recorded that the present petitioner had not filed any written objection to the amendment application, which was an incorrect recording in view of written objections having been filed by the present petitioner. Such application for recall was also rejected on February 20, 2016, which is the second impugned order. By the third impugned order dated November 28, 2016, another couple of applications filed by the opposite party nos.1 and 2 to effect further amendments to the applications, for restoration and condonation respectively, were allowed. The present petitioner took out a recalling application on the ground that no opportunity for filing any written objection to the amendment application was given to the present petitioner before allowing the said amendment applications on February 28, 2016. By the fourth impugned order dated March 4, 2017, the trial court rejected such recalling application also.
(3.) Subsequently, despite pendency of C.O. No. 3066 of 2017, the trial court fixed dates for hearing the applications of the opposite party nos.1 and 2 under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code. Such dates were, in fact, being fixed for hearing of the said application, despite pendency of the connected application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Challenging such subsequent order fixing date, the present petitioner preferred C.O. No. 8 of 2018.;