PRADYUT KUMAR KAILTHYA Vs. MIRZAPUR GRAM HINDU JANASADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is taken for passing order. The Learned Advocate for the applicant/petitioner appeared. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Opposite Party on repeated calls on three consecutive dates. It appears further that the notice has duly served by speed post upon the Opposite Party.

(2.) UNDER the circumstances, heard learned Advocates for the petitioner. This revisional application is directed against the order passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court at Jangipur, Mursidabad passed in Misc. Case No. 4/2007 being Order No. 42 whereby the learned Court below has been pleased to allow the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, in favour of respondent/Opposite Party condoning the delay of about two years in presenting the petition for setting aside the ex-parte order under Rule 9 Order 13 C.P.C.

(3.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision on the grounds that learned Court below before passing of such impugned order ought to have been taken into consideration the fact that the suit was decreed long back. Further for that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is per-verse and bad in law and is liable to be set aside. Further that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the Opposite Party entered into appearance and contested the suit even through an authorise agents and under such circumstances, the entire liability on proceeding raised on his shoulder as well. Finally, the learned Court below acted mechanically and without application of mind, which is against the principle of natural justice and equity.