SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The present revision has been preferred against an order, whereby the petitioners' application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed, primarily on the ground that no application for condonation of delay in filing the same had been taken out by the petitioners. The trial court also found that the case records show that the petitioners had been "on the case record" for a long time and so it could be safely held that they were aware of the state of the case.
(2.) Upon hearing learned counsel for both sides, it appears that this case has a checkered career. Upon an ex parte decree of eviction being passed on June 23, 2008 against the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, the said predecessor took out an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the same. During pendency of such application, the original judgment-debtor died. The decree-holders filed an application for substitution of the present petitioners in place, and as heirs, of the said deceased. During pendency of the said substitution application, the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code was dismissed for default. Such dismissal took place on August 20, 2011.
(3.) On November 24, 2011, that is, barely after about four days of expiry of limitation, the petitioners filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the order of dismissal dated August 20, 2010. The Registrar of the Small Causes Court at Calcutta,, allowed such recall application, as well as the substitution application.;