IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 354 of 2025 Urbashi Barat VS.

Dalmia Bharat Developer Ltd.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sukanta Chakrabarty Mr. Anindya Halder ….. advocates For the Opposite Party : Mr. Saptanshu Basu … Sr. Advocate Mr. Avinash Kankani Mr. Suman Majumder …. advocates Reserved on : 26.02.2025 Judgment on : 13.03.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant in a proceeding under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against the order being No.22 dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 103 of 2022 affirming the order being No. 53 dated 18.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge, 5^th Bench Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. 298 of 2015.

2. By the order dated July 18, 2022, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Case stood rejected. Petitioner preferred the Misc. Appeal against the aforesaid order, which stood rejected by the order dated December, 2, 2024.

3. The Opposite Party herein filed a suit for eviction under Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 against one Lila Dasgupta, since deceased before the learned Judge 5^th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta which was registered as Ejectment Suit No. 103 of 2005. Lila Dasgupta, since deceased entered appearance in the said suit but did not take any steps thereafter. The said suit was decreed ex parte by a judgment and decree dated 29.04.2006. The decree was put into execution giving rise to Ejectment Execution Case No. 59 of 2011. The said Lila Dasgupta died on 15.03.2015. Thereafter, the daughter of the said Lila Dasgupta/ petitioner herein filed the Misc. Case under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) being Misc. Case No. 298 of 2015 on 18.09.2015 praying for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 29.04.2006. Petitioner also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the aforesaid delay in filing the Misc Case.

4. The case made out by the petitioner in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is summarized hereunder as follows.

5. After the death of her mother on 15.03.2015, petitioner enquired about the case through the lawyers who was entrusted by her mother to look after the eviction suit. Monthly rent was paid month by month to the lawyer and the petitioner has got the receipts for such payment. During puja in 2014, petitioner was informed that she has to vacate the premises. Since the previous learned advocate did not give any positive answer, she engaged another advocate and applied for the certified copy of the order and decree on 07.05.2015 and received the same on 19.08.2015 and thereafter filed the Misc. Case along with the application for condonation of delay.

6. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing in support of the civil revision application contended that the petitioner paid rent month by month through the learned advocate and obtained receipts in support of such payment. He further contended that the mother of the petitioner discharged all her obligations as a tenant. He submitted that the petitioner suffered an ex parte decree due to the negligence, inaction and laches on the part of the petitioners learned advocate and immediately after being made aware of the ex parte decree, petitioner took steps for setting aside the ex parte decree.

7. Mr. Chakraborty contended that the mother of the petitioner engaged a lawyer and she was confident that the lawyer will took after his interest. He contended that the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the inaction and negligence of the learned advocate. In support of such contention, Mr. Chakraborty placed r