SANDIP KUMAR NANDY Vs. DINOBANDHOO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party filed Title Suit No. 206 of 1980 in the Second Court of the Learned Munsif at Howrah, subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 28 of 1985 of the court of the learned First additional Munsif, Howrah on transfer, for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises inter alia, on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement. The said suit was decreed in part only on the ground of default, by the learned munsif on 29th September, 1986. Against the said decree the petitioners preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 257 of 186, and the opposite party also filed a cross objection in the said appeal as no decree was passed in the suit on the ground of reasonable requirement. The learned Third Assistant district Judge, Howrah who heard the said appeal, remanded the matter back to the trial court for rehearing, by his judgment and order dated 30th June, 1990. Against the said order of remand, the opposite party preferred a First miscellaneous Appeal being F. M. A. No. 1062 of 1990 in this Hon'ble Court, which was ultimately allowed by Haridas Das, J. on 2nd August, 1991 by setting aside the said order of remand and remanding the matter back to the lower appellate court for rehearing of the appeal inter alia, with the following directions:-

(2.) AFTER the matter was sent back to the lower appellate court as above, the petitioners' appeal however, was dismissed for default on 20th December, 1991 by the learned Third Assistant District Judge, How rah as no one appeared on behalf of the appellants at the time of hearing of the appeal. The lower appellate court however, went on proceeding with the cross-objection and passed certain orders namely, the Order Nos. 69, 70 and 71 dated 2nd january, 1992, 3rd January, 1992 and 16th January, 1992 respectively, which are the subject matters of challenge in the present civil order.

(3.) MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioners contends inter alia, that since the title appeal was dismissed, whether on merits or not, after such dismissal, the cross objection that was filed in the said appeal, cannot be proceeded with any further, in view of the fact that the cross-objection arose out of Title Appeal No. 257 of 1986 itself, which was dismissed for default as aforesaid and the cross objection was not an independent proceeding nor it could be treated as a separate appeal.