MANOJ KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) GITA Banerjee, the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties, filed a partition suit (Title Suit No. 7/77) in the Third Court of the Subordinate Judge (Assistant District Judge), Howrah, against her sister, the petitioner herein, claiming a moiety share in the suit property. For non-appearance of the petitioner the suit was decreed ex parte in a preliminary form on January 18, 1978. On March 2, 1979 the petitioner, through her learned Advocate Sri Sachin Mukherjee, filed an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('code' for short) for setting aside the ex parte decree which was registered as Misc. Case No. 15 of 1979. On July 14, 1979 the petitioner filed another application through the said Advocate with a prayer for drawing up of another preliminary decree by setting aside the ex parte decree earlier passed after taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to a deed of settlement executed by their father on August 8, 1965 she and her sister were entitled to 2/3rd and 1/3rd share respectively in the suit property. On April 25, 1981 when the above Misc. Case was taken up for hearing the petitioner filed an application through the same Advocate stating that in view of her earlier application dated July 14, 1979 praying for a second preliminary decree she did not find it expedient to proceed with the Misc. Case any further. The learned Judge accordingly dismissed the Misc. Case for non-prosecution by his order No. 56 April 25, 1981. The application dated July 14, 1979 was also rejected by the learned Judge by his order No. 78 dated August 16, 1982 on a finding that the same was wholly misconceived. An application for review of the above order was then filed by the petitioner on October 6, 1982 and this application was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 83. On June 16, 1984 the petitioner filed another application through the same Advocate stating that as she had alienated her right, title and interest in the suit property in the meantime, she did not wish to proceed with the suit. In view of the above submission the learned Judge dismissed Misc. Case No. 9 of 1983 by his order No. 111 dated June 16, 1984.

( 2 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed an application under S. 151 of the Code on July 7, 1984 through another Advocate engaged by her praying for review of the above order No. 111 dated June 16, 1984. In this application the petitioner averred, inter alia, that she was an old and illiterate lady, that she was not aware of the provisions of law and the implication of the ex parte preliminary decree and that owing to wrong legal advice of her erstwhile Advocate she had filed misconceived applications and allowed the Misc. Cases to be dismissed. She accordingly prayed for setting aside the order dated June 16, 1984 after reviewing the same. Another application was thereafter filed by her to amend the above application under S. 151 of the Code to include an averment that the Misc. Case No. 15 of 1979 should be restored otherwise she would suffer irreparable loss and injury and a prayer for setting aside the order dated April 25, 1981 dismissing the Misc. Case. The opposite parties contested the application by filing a written objection. In support of her averments in the application the petitioner examined Sri Sachin. Mukherjee, the Advocate earlier engaged by her. By his order No. 216 dated December 23, 1987 the learned Judge dismissed the application and for that matter, the application for amendment. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed the present revisional application, which has been heard as a contested one.

( 3 ) HAVING considered the nature and contents of the various applications filed by the petitioner through her learned Advocate Sri Sachin Mukherjee, we have no hesitation in concluding that the petitioner was wrongly advised by him, particularly in filing the application for drawing up of another preliminary decree by setting aside the ex parte de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document