NRITYA GOPAL NANDI Vs. GOUR MOHAN ADAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an Order No. 43 dated November 19, 1976 rejecting plaintiff's petition for reconsideration of the earlier order of the same Court being No. 38, dated July 16, 1976. It appears that in the connected appeal the appellate Court directed that the petition for amendment of the plaint filed in the appellate court would be considered by the trial Court provided the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 25/- as costs to the defendant within a fortnight of the arrival of record to that Court and in default, the appeal was to stand dismissed which would mean the dismissal of the suit itself as ordered by the trial Court.

(2.) It appears from Order No. 26, dated October 3, 1975 that records were received back by the trial court on that date along with copy of judgment of the appellate court. The trial Court passed an order on that date directing the parties to take steps by November 15, 1975. It may be mentioned here that the Court closed for long vacation on October 6, 1975 and reopened on November 7, 1975. The plaintiff deposited the amount on November 15, 1975 which was permitted by the learned Munsif by his order No. 27 of date in pursuance of his earlier order. Thereafter, on July 16, 1976, the amendment petition was taken up for hearing in presence of the parties. The learned Munsif, who was successor-in-office to the learned Munsif who passed the order of October 3, 1975, was of opinion while considering the amendment petition that the order of his predecessor bearing No. 27, dated November 15, 1975 permitting the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 25/- was without jurisdiction as the trial court could not act against the direction of the superior Court. Accordingly, application for amendment was dismissed by order No. 38 dated July 16, 1976 in view of the appellate Court's order which inter alia provided for dismissal of the amendment petition in case the amount was not paid within fortnight of the arrival of record.

(3.) The plaintiff filed an application for reconsideration of the order and it appears that the learned Munsif, who was again a successor-in-office to the learned Munsif who passed the order of July 16, 1976, was of opinion that there was no ground for reconsideration of the said order of July 16, 1976. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration was rejected by Order 43 dated November 19, 1976, this Rule is directed against this order.