TINKARI SEN Vs. DULAL CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This in an application "for re view and/or reconsideration" of my two orders one dated June 17, 1966 and the other dated June 22 following.

(2.) By the first such 'order'--really it was a judgment--I made absolute the rule obtained by the landlords under Article 227 of the Constitution against an appellate order of affirmance arising out of proceedings for standardization of rent under Section 9 of the "1950 Act." So I did, after having heard only Mr. Deb who with Mr. Anil Kumar Mukherjee was appearing in support of the rule. Unfortunately, neither Mr. Murari Mohan Mukherjee nor his pleader. Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherjee, appearing for the opposite party tenants, was present After the judgment was delivered, making the rule absolute, Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherjee mentioned the matter that very day (June 17, 1966), saying that the case was lost sight of. Thereupon I set it down for hearing on June 22, 1959 so that the matter might be heard in presence of both the parties. On June 22, however I did not find Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherjee nor his learned junior. I, therefore, ordered that the judgment I had rendered on June 17 previous would stand. More, I signed the judgment that day too: June 22. This is the second order that is sought to be "reviewed and/or reconsidered."

(3.) Mr. Chittatosh Mookerjee, it appears, drew up the review petition, moved it before me on August 23, 1966, and obtained the rule which is for decision now and in support of which he appears, though he appeared at no stage during the carriage of the main rule under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Here hangs a point. More of which hereafter in paragraph 6 et seq. infra.)