NORATMAL BENGANI Vs. DHRUBA KUMAR JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER no. 38 dated December 16, 2009 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court at Calcutta is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 55 of 2007. By the impugned order, the defendant's petition under ORDER 39 Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code (hereafter the Code) has been rejected.

(2.) PERUSAL of the impugned order reveals that the learned Judge on the application of the plaintiff appointed an Advocate Commissioner. He was required to submit a report on the following points:

(3.) THE learned Judge heard the parties. She noted that the report of the Advocate Commissioner had not been marked exhibit, and that the defendant had not filed any written objection in respect of such report. THE defendant's petition was rejected on two grounds viz. (i) it was incomprehensible as to why the defendant despite being at liberty to make submission at the time of inspection remained silent; and (ii) if there is suppression of material facts by the plaintiff regarding the number of rooms in his occupation or in the occupation of the defendant, it is the plaintiff who would suffer for his deeds.