SAKERA BIBI Vs. SK JAMIRUL ISLAM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application, at the instance of the original defendant in the suit is directed against the order dated July 15, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Suri, Birbhum in Misc. Case No. 19 of 2013, arising out of Title Suit No.64 of 2009. By the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the opposite parties-plaintiffs under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( in short " the Code").

(2.) During the pendency of this revisional application the sole revisional petitioner, the original sole defendant in the suit died and her heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record.

(3.) The brief facts relevant for deciding the revisional application are that the opposite parties filed the suit against the father of the present petitioners (the original defendant) claiming a decree that the decree for partition passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 1993 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dubrajpur is not binding upon them. The said suit was filed after the application of the opposite parties filed, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the said Title Suit No. 42 of 1993 was rejected. However, on February 8, 2013 the suit was dismissed by the learned Court below as none appeared for the opposite parties plaintiffs. Subsequently, however, an application was filed by the opposite parties-plaintiffs, being Misc. Case No. 19 of 2013, under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside of the order dated February 8, 2013 passed by the learned Court below and for restoration of the suit to its original file and number. In the said application, it was alleged that within a period of one month there was two bereavements in the family of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' mother had fallen sick who was regularly taken to the doctor by the plaintiff no. 1. It was further alleged that the plaintiff no. 1 is the "tadbirkar" of the remaining plaintiffs; since, he was busy with the treatment of the mother there was no one else to look after the suit and consequently the suit was dismissed for default. The said application was contested by the original defendant and the parties to the suit also adduced their respective evidence before the learned Court below. By the order dated July 15, 2014 the learned Court below allowed the said application of the opposite partiesplaintiffs under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code and restored the suit. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated July 15, 2014 which is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application.