NANDLAL GHOSE Vs. SAKTIPADA BAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal and the only question of importance raised is about limitation. How this question'of limitation arises would be clear only from the narration of facts.

(2.) ON or about January 15, 1990 Basudeb Bag, since deceased, instituted Title Suit No. 34 of 1990 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Second Court at Barasat, District: North 24-Parganas, inter alia, for ejectment and recovery of mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff, Basudeb Bag, died and his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in the suit as substituted plaintiffs by order No. 34 dated September 23, 1997.

(3.) THE defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed his written statement. Ultimately, however, the defendant did not contest the suit. Consequently, by judgment and decree dated July 27, 2000 the learned trial Judge decreed the suit ex parte with costs against the defendant. The learned Judge, inter alia, held that the said plaintiffs reasonably required the suit premises for their own use and occupation and for accommodation of the members of their families.