NETAI CHARAN SADHUKHAN Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR DHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 3.8.1998 passed by the learned Judge (Senior Divisioin), 2nd Court, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 248 of 1995 forms the subject matter of the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) On 3.8.1998, learned Appellate Court passed two orders. By the earlier one, he was pleased to reject the application of the defendant-petitioners for adjournment of hearing of the appeal and directed the learned Advocate of the defendant-appellant-petitioners to get ready. The record was directed to be put up on that date at 4-35 p.m. for necessary orders. The said order was passed in presence of both the sides. By the subsequent order, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal for default after rejecting the application for adjournment that was filed after the previous application for adjournment was rejected by the earlier order.

(3.) It is true that the last line of the subsequent order reads as if the application and the appeal were disposed of, but it was not a case of disposal of the appeal on merits. Learned court below has nowhere adverted to the merits of the appeal and the ordering portion begins with the expression: "that the appeal be and the same is dismissed for default ???" The last sentence in that order is : "Thus the application together with the appeal disposed of accordingly."