IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury C.O. 3739 of 2024 Rushiya Bibi & Ors.

VERSUS Md. Roushan Ali Mondal & Ors.

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashim Kr. Routh, Adv.

Ms. Manishka Dhar, Adv. Ms. Ananya Mondal, Adv.

For the O.P. No.1: Mr. Subhayam Banik, Adv.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Adv.

Mr. Sormi Dutta, Adv.

Last Heard on: November 07, 2025 Judgment on: November 17, 2025 Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:

The petitioners before this Court are the plaintiffs in a suit for pre-

emption and is aggrieved by the Order dated 23-09-2024 passed by Learned Civil Judge Junior Division 1st Court Barasat North 24 Parganas in allowing the petition filed by the opposite party No-1 to allow him to contest the suit by filing written statement and setting aside the order fixing the case for exparte hearing.

On the application filed by the opposite party no-1/Defendant no-1 before the Learned Trial Court for setting aside Order fixing T.S. 431 of 2010 for Exparte hearing against opposite party no-1 by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court Barasat North 24 Parganas the Learned Judge decide the same by observing as follows:

‘In the light of the above deliberation, it is evident that an opportunity of hearing is a quintessential feature of a fair trial.

The function of a processual law is to facilitate justice and further its ends, and therefore it must be construed liberally and in such manner as to render the enforcement of substantive rights effective. The denial of relief on the score of mistake and negligence is abdominal to the rules of procedure.

The Court should adopt a liberal approach in interpreting civil processual law. It is also limpid that costs may be imposed to provide to cut short the inconvenience caused to the adversary. It goes without saying that cost is the best medicine that cures every problem in litigation.

Thus it can be safe to conclude that in the present case defendant no-1 can get an opportunity to participate in the proceeding, however, by paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 (Ten thousand) as the defendant should not be punished for the act and conduct of his lawyer.

In the light of the above reasoning prayer of the defendant is allowed with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand). The defendant no-1 is entitled to contest this case and written statement filed by defendant no.1 is accepted subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) to the plaintiff. The order no. 11 dated 17-11-2011 is modified to the extent that defendant can participate in this suit and ex-parte order is hereby set aside subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) to the plaintiff.

Fix 11.11.2024 for hearing of petition pertaining to Order 12 Rule 6 read with Section 151 CPC filed by defendants no. 11 to 12 and payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) by defendant no-1 to the plaintiff.’

The petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Trial Court has come up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The order of the Learned Trial Court is assailed on the ground that the said application dated 29th April 2024 for vacating the interim order was taken up for hearing on 23rd September without serving any copy and granting any opportunity to the petitioners to file their written objection, and that the Learned Trial Court did not consider that the defendant no-1 is trying to contest the suit by setting aside the ex-parte order against him almost after 12 years only to delay the suit, and that the Learned Judge did not consider that the defendant no-1 has already transferred the suit property to the defendant no. 11 and 12 and that the said defendants have agreed to transfer the same in favour of the petitioners upon getting necessary consideration thereof as per the direction of Learned Court below.

Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioners and Learned Advocate for the opposite party no-1. Perused the