NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5074 OF 2009   [Arising out of SLP© No.21608 of 2008]

Renuka Das        … .Appellant

VERSUS

Maya Ganguly & Anr. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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  court  and  restoring  the  suit  for  decision  on  

merits. Since the appellant had not appeared when the  

suit was taken up for hearing,  the same was heard ex  

1

parte  on  11th of  September,  1996  and  the  suit  was  

decreed  ex  parte  directing  eviction  of  the  appellant  in  

respect  of  the  suit  premises.  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 court. 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 court which had set  

aside the order of the trial court rejecting the application  

under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and restoring the suit  

for  fresh  decision  on  merits  in  accordance  with  law.  

Against this order of the appellate court, 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  court  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 counsel for the parties.  

2

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  

examined the impugned order as well as the orders of the  

appellate court and the trial court. From a plain reading  

of the impugned order, it would be evident that the High  

Court in its revisional jurisdiction had interfered with the  

findings of fact arrived at by the appellate court restoring  

the suit for eviction. It is well settled that the High Court,  

in revision, is not entitled to interfere with the findings of  

the appellate court, until and unless it is found that such  

findings  are  perverse  and  arbitrary.  We  have  carefully  

examined the impugned order of the High Court as well  

as the order of the appellate court. From a reading of the  

order of  the appellate  court and the order of  the High  

Court,  we  cannot  come to  this  conclusion  that  it  was  

open for the High Court to interfere with the order of the  

appellate court when no perversity or arbitrariness could  

be found in the findings of the appellate court. In view of  

the discussions made hereinabove, we are, therefore, of  

the  view  that  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  

interfering  with  the  findings  of  the  appellate  court  

restoring the suit in the exercise of its revisional power.   

3

4. Accordingly,  the impugned order is  set  aside.  The trial  

court  is  directed  to  dispose  of  the  suit  as  early  as  

possible  preferably within six  months from the date  of  

supply of a copy of this order to it without granting any  

unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

5. For  the  reasons  aforesaid,  the  impugned  order  is  set  

aside. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC  

filed by the appellant stands allowed.  

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated  

above. There will be no order as to costs.

………………………..J [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ……………………….J. August 04, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]

4