AMAR NATH MUKHERJEE Vs. SATYA RANJAN KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and it is directed against Order No. 64 dated 21-2-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Asansol in the District of Burdwan in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2000.

(2.) Shortly put the background and circumstances leading to the filing of the instant application before this Court are as follows :

(3.) The petitioner as plaintiff filled a suit for eviction before the aforesaid Court and the defendant/tenant pursuant to the summons appeared and proceeded to contest the suit by filing application under sections 17(1), 17(2) and 17(2A) etc. of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. Thereafter the defendant all of a sudden stopped participating in the suit. As a result of which, the suit in question, namely, Title Suit No. 216 of 1992 was decreed exparte on 5-81997. Long three years after that the tenant filed an application alleging inter alia that he came to know all about the exparte decree only on 17-2-2000. In this background, the defendant/ tenant filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. and also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree. His case was that during the pendency of the suit there was a settlement between the parties following which the tenant surrendered one of the two rooms which were under his occupation and in this way the matter was settled and the plaintiff/landlord later on inducted another tenant-in respect of that room and the tenant/defendant was under the impression that since settlement was reached at between the parties there was no necessity of attending the Court any further. But coming back to Asansol he came to came to know for the first time about the ex parte decree only on 17-2-2000 and thereafter filed the aforesaid two applications. The learned Judge by the order impugned found that on the basis of the evidence on record and the other materials the petitioner/ tenant appeared in connection with the Title Suit No. 216 of 1992 filed the written statement and deposed on oath to substantiate his case. On the basis of the same, he allowed the Misc. case No. 31 of 2000 which arose out of a proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C.