It filed a suit on the original side of the Calcutta High Court claiming a decree for a sum of Rs.37,26,498/ with interest against the respondents.
An appeal preferred thereagainst has been allowed by the Division Bench by reason of the impugned judgment.
The numberice was returnable on 12th June, 2002.
A direction for filing of Affidavit in opposition was issued upon the plaintiffs application.
An application was filed for recording a decree under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure on 23rd May, 2002.
No decree, however, was passed against it.
An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff appellant thereagainst as numberdecree had been passed against defendant No.2.
It was impleaded as the guarantor of defendant No.1.
The said appeal was dismissed.
Arising out of SLP C No.18059/2005 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
A judgment and decree, upon admission for a sum of Rs.37,26,428/ along with interest, was passed against defendant No.1.
The matter was again listed on 15th July, 2002.
On that date numberody appeared on behalf of defendant No.1.
On the said application, numberice of motion was to be served upon the defendants respondents.
The defendant respondent No.1, thereafter, filed an application for recalling the said ex parte decree, inter alia, companytending that they came to know about the institution of the said suit only when a memorandum of appeal together with a companyy of the stay petition was served upon them in August, 2002.
On the said numberice, numberody had appeared on behalf of defendant No.1.
Defendant No.2 was a tea broker of defendant No.1.
Allegedly the said order was companymunicated to the respondent No.1 by Registered Post.
In terms of an order dated 7th December, 2004, a learned Single Judge found the said application to be thoroughly mischievous and devoid of any merit but still a direction for recalling the decree was passed on companydition that respondent furnishes a security of Rs.37 lakhs either in the form of bank guarantee or in cash within a period of three months therefrom.
Interpretation and application of the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short, CPC is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.P.O.T.No.86 of 2005 arising out of C.S.No.234 of 2002 modifying an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the said companyrt.
Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the said companyrt was also obtained.
The plaintiff is the appellant before us.
