Biswajit Basu, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2007 passed by the learned IX-th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2400 of 1994.
(2.) None appears on behalf of the appellants even at the second call. No accommodation has been prayed for. Hence the appeal is dismissed for default. The learned Trial Judge by the Judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2007 has been pleased to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the agreement dated 22.12.92. but the prayer of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property has not been granted in the decree.
(3.) The plaintiff respondent aggrieved by the refusal to grant the relief of possession has preferred the cross objection in the present appeal being C.O.T. 42 of 2008. The Only ground which the cross-objection is based is that the learned Trial Judge in the decree has not granted the relief of possession although same was prayed for specifically as prayer (e) in the plaint. The said prayer (e) is quoted below: "(e) A decree for possession of the property by evicting the defendant therefrom; Heard learned advocates for the defendants/respondents and perused the materials on record. From Ground No. IX of Memorandum of Cross Objection we find that a Misc. Case 5905 of 2007 has been filed by the defendant/respondent before the learned Trial Judge on 8.10.2006. The said ground reads as follows: "IX. For that the plaintiff preferred an application for review by filing Misc. Case No. 5905 of 2007 on 08.10.2006 for decree for possession of the suit property by evicting the defendant therefrom before the Learned IXth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta.";