Since the appellant had number appeared when the suit was taken up for hearing, the same was heard ex parte on 11th of September, 1996 and the suit was decreed ex parte directing eviction of the appellant in respect of the suit premises.
Against this order of the appellate companyrt, a revision was filed before the High Court and a learned Judge of the High Court exercising revisional power had set aside the order of the appellate companyrt and restored the ex parte decree for eviction passed against the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, restoring the ex parte decree for eviction, this special leave petition was filed which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Subsequent to this, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was filed at the instance of the appellant and the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was rejected by the trial companyrt.
Feeling aggrieved by this order of rejection of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, an appeal was carried to the appellate companyrt which had set aside the order of the trial companyrt rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and restoring the suit for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th of March, 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court at Calcutta in C.O.No.2736 of 2000 whereby the High Court had restored the ex parte decree for eviction passed against the appellant in respect of the suit premises which was filed, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent, setting aside the order of the appellant companyrt and restoring the suit for decision on merits.
