JUDGMENT :

Rabindranath Samanta, J

1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the Order dated 24th March, 2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Sealdah in Misc Appeal No. 15 of 2021.

2. The facts which are necessary for adjudication of the instant revisional application may be adumbrated as under:

The opposite party Ghanshyam Das Agarwala filed a suit being Ejectment suit No. 99 of 2005 against the petitioner Sumitra Varma under the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Sealdah in order to evict her from the suit premises and to recover possession of the premises from her. The petitioner entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement to contest the suit.

3. The opposite party filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2011 against the petitioner. While this Misc Case was pending for hearing, the learned Trial Judge by passing an Order dated 5th January, 2013 posted the suit on 9th April, 2013 after disposing of the Misc Case. The Misc. Case was disposed of ex parte on 4th March, 2013 and the learned Trial Judge posted the suit for peremptory hearing on 26th March, 2013 ignoring the fact that the hearing of the suit was fixed on 9th April, 2013. However, on 26th March, 2013 the learned Trial Judge adjourned the peremptory hearing of the suit and fixed the suit on 9th April, 2013 for ex parte hearing. The petitioner was under an impression that the Misc Case would be taken up first and thereafter the suit would be posted for peremptory hearing. However, the learned Trial Judge by order dated 9th April, 2013 decreed the suit ex parte against the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the ex parte decree dated 9th April, 2013 the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act registered as Misc Case No. 18 of 2013 against the opposite party praying for vacating the ex parte decree. The petitioner could not attend the Court on 09.04.2013 due to illness for her old age and for unbearable pains of arthritis in her legs. Such ailments made her immobile and she was bed ridden. For such reasons she could not contact either with her learned Advocate or with the concerned law clerk. Owing to antagonistic attitude of the sons of the petitioner the petitioner could not seek assistance from them.

5. However, on 20.05.2013, she after recovering from ailments partially, visited the Court and contacted her learned advocate. The concerned clerk informed her that due to her non-appearance the suit got decreed ex parte on 9th April, 2013. She engaged another learned Advocate and started proceeding in the suit. There was a delay of only 18 days in preferring the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and for which she sought for condonation of such delay.

6. By Order dated 9th March, 2017 the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the reason that she failed to exhibit the medical certificate to establish her illness and consequently the Misc Case stood dismissed. As against the order of dismissal of the Misc Case she preferred an appeal being Misc Appeal No. 54 of 2017 and the appeal was renumbered as Misc Appeal No. 6 of 2018 before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Sealdah.

7. Meanwhile, the opposite party put the ex parte decree dated 9th April, 2013 in execution by preferring an ejectment execution case No. 11 of 2013. On her prayer before the learned Appellate Court, the further proceeding of the execution case was stayed on the condition that the petitioner would have to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party for occupying the premises. But, ultimately,