PRABHAT KUMAR MAHAPATRA Vs. MADHABIKA DUTTA BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have perused the records and heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(3.) A suit for eviction was filed by the respondents against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, which was decreed ex parte. The said ex parte decree was sought to be set aside at the instance of the appellants by an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was filed on the ground that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date the suit was decreed ex parte. The trial court rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In appeal, the appellate court had allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte decree on a finding that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the appellants on the date the suit was decreed ex parte. This was so done by the appellate court on reappreciation of the evidence as well as on consideration of the materials on record. The respondents came in revision before the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court by the impugned order in revision has done a further exercise of reappreciation of evidence and interfered with the order of the appellate court. This, in our view, was erroneous. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 in exercise of revision is limited and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence, which is the settled position in law.