KABRA MARBLE CORPORATION Vs. SUDIPTO MUKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is no doubt true that the respondents have suffered because of the conduct and attitude of the appellants surfaced in course of the proceeding before the Trial Court. At the first blush, we thought that such recalcitrant litigant should not be shown any leniency, but after pondering upon the facts emanate from the record, we feel that he should be allowed to be heard and the matter should be decided without being swayed by emotions but purely on the proposition of law.

(2.) Undoubtedly a suit for eviction filed way back in the year 2008 was lingered on for a pretty long time until the same was decreed ex parte against the appellants. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was taken out, which was eventually allowed and the suit was restored to its original file and number. In spite of having blessed with the restoration of the suit upon setting aside the ex parte decree the appellants did not show any diligence in proceeding with the said suit, which was again decreed ex parte.

(3.) For the purpose of record we hereby make it clear that the execution proceeding is pending in the docket of the Court and the reality is that the possession has not been recovered. Another application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed, which was again pending for a long time which constrained the respondents to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to dispose of the same expeditiously.