IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.O.1043 of 2018 Sadananda Ganguli VS.

Srimati Rita Bhattacharyya & Anr.

Petitioner in-person :Mr. Sadananda Ganguli.

For the Opposite Party :Mr. Siva Prosad Ghose, Adv.

Last Heard On :24.03.2025 Judgement On :22.05.2025 Bibhas Ranjan De, J. :

1. The Instant civil order has been filed assailing order no. 94 dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, 4^th Court, Sealdah in connection with Title Suit No. 87 of 1995 wherein Ld. Trial Judge allowed one application dated 14.12.2017 filed by the defendant and recalled the order dated

11.12.2017 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff.

2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner is the owner of the subject premises (shop room) which was transferred to one Paritosh Bhattacharyya, predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties, by a registered deed of lease dated 19.12.1973 for 21 years commencing from 01.01.1974 and which was to expire on Last day of December 1994.

3. After expiry of the lease, said Parithosh Bhattacharyya did not quit and vacate the said shop room and in effect petitioner filed a suit being no. TS 87 of 1995 with a prayer for recovery of possession of the said shop room along with other consequential reliefs.

4. After filing of the suit, notice was served by the bailiff by hanging it both at the residence of the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties and also in the shop room. On 6th May, 2024 predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties filed an application with a prayer for time to file written statement on 06.05.2004 and time was granted till June 25.06.2004. However, on 28.10.2005 none appeared on behalf of the predecessor-in- interest of the opposite parties on repeated calls and in the result, the show cause petition was rejected and suit was fixed for ex-parte hearing on 10.02.2006. On the day of ex-parte hearing, examination-in-chief supported by affidavit was filed but at the same time predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties filed a petition showing cause of delay in filing written statement on account of non-supply of copy of the plaint. However, on 22.08.2006 Ld. Trial Judge accepted the written statement after condoning delay subject to payment of cost of Rs. 800/-. Being aggrieved petitioner/ plaintiff of the suit preferred a revision application being no. CO 4297 of 2006 before the Hon’ble High Court wherein Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench directed Ld. Trial Judge to dispose of the suit within six (6) months from the date of communication of the order without interfering with the order of acceptance of written statement by the Ld. Trial Judge.

5. On 13.09.2017 petitioner was partly cross examined but subsequently on 20.11.2017 and on 11.12.2017 none appeared on behalf of the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties. Finally on 11.12.2017 Ld. Trial Judge heard Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff and fixed a date for pronouncement of judgment on 18.12.2017.

6. At this stage, predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties filed one application on 14.12.2017 with a prayer for recalling the order dated 11.12.2017. Pursuant to the put up application, Ld. Trial Judge fixed hearing of the application for recalling the order dated 11.12.2017 on 18.12.2017. After hearing, the order impugned in this civil order was passed.

At the Bar:-

7. Mr. Sadananda Ganguli, appearing in-person, at the very outset by referring to the judgment of this court in connection with CO 4297 of 2006 has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court ought not to have granted any further opportunity to the opposite party when this Hon’ble Court already gave a clear direction to dispose of the suit within six (6) months positively.

8. Mr. Ganguly further argued that once the hearing of a suit is concluded and closed for judgment, Order IX Rule 7 of the code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) has no application at all which is f