Civil Appeal No.
1 Baranagar Jute Factory Company Ltd. was the tenant in respect to the flat in question under the plaintiff.
The allegation in the plaint so far as the third defendant is companycerned, is in paragraph 7 in the following words Subsequent to the said Decree on a date or dates which the plaintiff is unable to specify until after disclosure by the defendants, the first and or second defendants wrongfully permitted and allowed the third defendant to occupy the said demised flat.
None of the defendants appeared.
The criticism by the High Court that the witness did number state anything in his evidence which companyld companynect him with the plaintiff or the property and thus make him companypetent was attempted to be met before us by relying on an affidavit filed in this Court.
The third defendant filed an application under the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree, but later withdrew the same and assailed the decree in appeal on merits.
The learned Single Judge decreed the suit and the defendant No.
From the Judgment and order dated 10.7.85 and 11.11.85 of the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal No.
The first and or second defendants by themselves and or by the third defendant are still in wrongful possession of the said demised flat.
According to the plaintiffs case, the defendant No.
At the ex parte trial the plaintiff examined one witness and tendered certain documents in evidence.
It is further pleaded that subsequent to the decree, either of the two defendants or both wrongfully inducted the third defendant to occupy the demised flat.
The plaintiff thereafter filed an application with a prayer to modify the judgment and remand the suit for retrial.
3 present respondent No.
The prayer was rejected by the order dated 11 10 1985.
The only evidence relevant to this part of the case is to be found in the oral evidence of the plaintiffs sole witness Nand Kumar Tibrewal.
4145 46 of 1986.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
4146 of 1986.
By way of an alternative relief to the money claimed, an inquiry for determination of the mesne profits was asked for.
The Jute Company defaulted in payment of rent and also wrongfully sublet the flat to the second defendant Sadhan Chattopadhyaya, which led to the filing of an eviction suit by the plaintiff.
1 and 2 is established by the companyy of the decree exhibited in the case.
The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to the reliefs mentioned in the plaint.
Both the defendants were impleaded in the suit but they did number appear to companytest.
477 of 1984.
1 filed an appeal therefrom which was allowed on 10 7 1985 by the judgment which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No.
4145 of 1986 is directed against this order.
Tapas Ray and B.R. Agarwal for the Appellant.
The dispute between the parties is in regard to a flat in a building on Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta.
An ex parte decree of eviction was passed on 19 2 1982.
A. Bobde, Rajiv Dutta and Ms. Mridula Ray for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered SHARMA, J. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court set aside the ex parte decree passed by the Original Side of the Court in favour of the plaintiff Sudha Devi, the present appellant.
The plaintiff prayed for a decree for Rs.1,44,730 as past mesne profits besides future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.170 per day and for if necessary, decree as against the third respondent for possession of the flat described in the plaint.
