MAMATA DAS Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the judgment dtd. 22/9/2023 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, in FAO No.12/2003 of 2019/2013 whereby dismissing the appeal, learned appellate Court confirmed the order dtd. 7/2/2013 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior division), in CMA No.09 of 2011 (arising out of CS NO.30 of 2006) rejecting an application under order IX Rule 9 CPC.

(3.) Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the suit was filed for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property against the State-Opposite Parties as well as for other consequential and ancillary reliefs. The original Plaintiff, namely, Nabadwip Das was suffering from Paralytic attack, for which he was being admitted to the hospital at times. The suit was once dismissed for non-prosecution on 12/3/2008. By filing an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, the suit was restored vide order dtd. 6/2/2009. In due course, the suit was posted to 30/6/2011 for evidence of the Plaintiff. On the said date, an application for adjournment was filed and it was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.50.00. The suit was thus adjourned to 14/7/2011 for adducing evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff. Since none appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff on the date fixed for hearing, the suit was dismissed for default.