In an ex parte proceeding, the plaintiff is required to prove his case with cogent and sufficient evidence to the satisfaction of the court.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the ex parte decree dated 23rd July 1984 passed by Mrs. Monjula Bose, J. in Suit No. 264 of 1984 (Sm. Sudha Devi v. Baranagore Jute Factory Company Ltd. and Ors.)

( 2 ) THE facts relevant to the instant appeal as will appear from the plaint of the said Suit No. , 264 of 1984 and other records are briefly set out hereunder.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 was a tenant under her in respect of flat No. 12 on the 6th floor with a servant quarter and car parking space on the ground floor (hereinafter referred to as the 'demised flat') at premises No. 12b, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta. The defendant No. 2 made defaults in payment of agreed monthly rents in respect of the demised flat to the respondent No. 1. Further, the respondent No. 2 during the subsistence of its tenancy without the consent of the respondent No. 1 sublet the demised flat to the respondent No. 3 and permitted and allowed him to occupy the same. In the premises the respondent No. 1 duly determined the tenancy of the respondent No. 2 in respect of the demised flat on and from 1st June 1974. Inasmuch as the respondent No. 2 failed and neglected to deliver up possession of the demised flat to the respondent No. 1 she filed in the City Civil Court an ejectment suit being Ejectment Suit No. 818 of 1974, against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. On 6th Feb. 1982 an ex parte decree for ejectment and Rs. 1295. 55 for cost, was passed against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit.

( 4 ) THE appellant initiated proceedings in the City Civil Court for leave to contest the execution of the ex parte decree for possession against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Ejectment Suit No. 818 of 1974 and he obtained leave to contest the execution of the decree under O. 21, R. 97 being Misc. Case No. 1183 of 1983 and the said Misc. Case is still pending.

( 5 ) IT has been alleged by the respondent No. 1 that subsequent to the said decree, second and/or third respondent wrongfully permitted and allowed the appellant to occupy the demised flat. The second and/or third respondent by themselves and/or by the appellant were in wrongful possession of the demised flat. The alternative case pleaded by the respondent No. 1 in her plaint in suit No. 264 of 1984 is that the appellant wrongfully entered the demised flat and had wrongfully taken possession thereof and he thereby trespassed and is still trespassing thereon. In the premises on or about 10th April 1984 the respondent No. 1 filed the above Suit No. 264 of 1984 against the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for a decree for possession of the demised flat against the appellant and a decree for Rs. 1,44,730/- on account of mesne profit as also further mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 170/- per day until delivery of possession of the demised flat against the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It appears that on 23rd July 1984 an ex parte decree was passed against the appellant directing him to deliver up to the respondent No. 1 quiet, vacant and peaceable possession of the demised flat and a decree for Rs. 1,44,730/- with interest on the said sum at the rate of 12% per annum from 11th April 1980 and costs against the appellant and the respondent No. 2. It was further decreed that the appellant and the respondent No. 2 would pay to the respondent No. 1 mesne profit in respect of the demised flat at the rate of Rs. 170/- per day commencing from 1st April 1984 until possession of the demised flat was delivered to the respondent No. 1.

( 6 ) ON 7th Aug. 1984 the appellant made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 23rd July 1984 which was however, dismissed on 30th Aug. 1984.

( 7 ) ON 10th Sept. 1984 the appellant preferred an appeal against the said order dated 30th Aug. 1984and made an application, inter alia, for stay of the said decree dated 23rd July 1984. On 20th Sept. 1984 the said application was dismissed and by consent of