BHANUMATI SINHA Vs. JUGAL KISHORE AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisional Application, which has been heard out as a 'Contested Application', is directed against Order No. 84, dated 22nd June, 1987, passed by the learned Judge, First Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 1192 6f 1985. The said Misc. case arose out of an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside an ex parte decree passed in a Suit for eviction being Ejectment Suit No. 665 of 1980 in connection with which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the impugned Order the learned Judge allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Decree holder Plaintiff is the applicant before this Court.

(2.) To appreciate the question raised by the contesting parties it would be necessary to take note of certain dates. The ex parte decree in the instant case was passed on 4th of March, 1985. The said decree was put into execution in Execution Case No. 109 of 1985. In that Execution Case the Decree holder filed an application for police help under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 579 of 1985. On or about 13th July, 1985 the notice of the aforesaid application for police help was served on the Judgment Debtor, the opposite party herein. On 28th September, 1985 the application for police help was allowed and on 9th October, 1985 possession of the Suit premises had been delivered to the Decree holder petitioner herein with police help. On 12th October, 1985 the aforesaid application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed but the application for condonation of delay in filing the same was preferred 3rd December, 1985.

(3.) The delay, which has been condoned by the impugned Order, therefore, has been alleged to be two-fold -one in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 and another in filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, As regards the first-fold of delay the dispute is confined to the merits of the sufficiency of the grounds for condonation and as regards the second-fold of the delay the dispute is of technical nature.