- (1.) The defendant in a suit for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 has preferred the instant revisional application against an order, whereby the second application for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the previous such application, which was rejected by the trial court by an order dated December 7, 2018, was filed in extreme haste and did not contain any detail. The said application was primarily rejected on such ground, which was challenged in revision before this Court, but the revisional application was ultimately withdrawn and consequentially dismissed by this Court. Subsequent to such dismissal, a fresh application for condonation of delay was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The trial court primarily proceeded on the premise that the petition was unambiguous and no ground for recall of the rejection of the previous application for condonation of delay was made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court failed to take into consideration the ample grounds furnished in the second application, being that the wife of the petitioner was ill and the son of the petitioner was being given in marriage during the relevant period, for which the petitioner could not attend court and instruct his counsel properly.
(2.) It is further submitted that the question of the principle of res judicata being applicable does not arise since the previous application was not disposed of on merits, but on technical grounds. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party argues that it is evident from the pleadings of the petitioner himself that the petitioner had obtained an information slip on February 15, 2018 and as such, knowledge can be attributed from that date. The petitioner appeared on March 10, 2018, but filed the first application for condonation of delay on May 15, 2018, without any explanation for the delay occasioned in the interregnum. This Court then rejected the revisional application preferred by the petitioner against the rejection of the first application for condonation of delay as withdrawn, without giving any liberty to take out a fresh condonation application. As such, it is argued that the second application was barred by principle of res judicata. In this context, learned counsel for the opposite party cites a judgment reported at 2014(3) ICC 462 (Gurmail Singh and others Vs. Kulwant Singh and others), wherein it was reiterated that the principle of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, but also gets attracted at subsequent stages in the same proceedings. As such, it is argued that the second application for condonation of delay was palpably barred by the principle of res judicata.
(3.) It is also argued that no valid reason for condonation of delay was furnished and there was no explanation whatsoever for the long gap between the filing of the second application and the date of obtaining the information slip. Thus, it is argued that the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. As regards the question of res judicata, a perusal of a photocopy of the order dated December 7, 2018, dismissing the first application for condonation, shows that such dismissal was primarily on the ground that the application was vague and did not clarify how the defendant suddenly came to court and entered appearance on March 6, 2018 and what was the basis of a sudden application for information slip. The other reason for dismissal was that the said petition contained two distinct prayers; one for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and the other for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act. As such, it is evident that such rejection was on technicalities, without arrived at any decision as regards the merits of the explanation furnished by the petitioner.;