DULAL CHANDRA Vs. BANAMALI GUCHAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application has been filed challenging the order dt. 22-2-87 in Misc. Appeal No. 116 of 1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah, affirming the order dt. 20-6-86 passed in Misc. Case No. 3585, by the learned Munsif, Uluberia.

(2.) It appears that an application for restoration of Misc. Case No. 24/77 was filed stating the relevant facts. The Misc. Case was dismissed for default on 3-4-82. The learned Munsif dismissed the prayer for restoration considering the background of the case and the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not found to be sufficient as to the absence on the date of hearing. The Misc. appeal was heard by the learned District Judge and the appeal was dismissed on two fold grounds. First, the learned District Judge found that the appeal was not maintainable under O.43, R.1(e) of the Civil P.C. Secondly, he dismissed the appeal on merit also.

(3.) I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties at length. I have gone through the materials on record. The petition under O.9, R.9 was filed and the only point to be considered as on the date of dismissal if the case for default whether there is sufficient reason for the absence of the petitioner. Other circumstances are absolutely extraneous. The petition under O.9, R.9 being dismissed, an appeal lies and the view taken by the learned district Judge is not correct. Apart, the learned District Judge has not appreciated the reasons as to the absence of the petitionerer on the date of hearing.