KOLKATA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. SARDARMULL KANKARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against a decree dated September 29, 2011. The defendant did not file written statement. In absence of written statement being filed, the learned Judge took up the suit for final hearing and held that the plaintiff had a right to seek decree ex parte, however, subject to proving the case by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved the defendant has preferred the appeal.

(2.) MR . P. S. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended, written statement was not filed in view of the pendency of a Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The decree dated September 29, 2011 was passed whereas such Special Leave Petition was disposed of on October 10, 2011.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The impugned judgment does not disclose any reason for passing the decree dated September 29, 2011. The plea that the written statement was not filed in view of the pendency of the Special Leave Petition, does not appeal to us. However, for the ends of justice and to afford the appellant an opportunity to contest the suit, we set aside the ex parte decree and permit the appellant to file written statement within a period of a fortnight from the date of this order. This direction is peremptory.