C.O. 2791 of 2022 19.08.2026 Mina Mazumder & Anr. Sl no. 29 Ct no. 2 - Vs – P.M. Satindranath Majumdar. Mr. Pritam Choudhury ... for the petitioners Mr. Prantik Ghosh ... for the opposite party 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25th March, 2022 whereby the application for recalling of the order dismissing the amendment application which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that an eviction suit was filed in 2007 bearing No. T.S. 136 of 2007 in which an amendment application was filed in 2015. While the matter was pending trial the plaintiff/opposite party filed C.O. 309 of 2021 before this Court for expeditious hearing of Title Suit No. 136 of 2007. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court passed the directions for disposal of the suit within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order and not to grant any unnecessary adjournment. 3. Pursuant to this the matter was taken up on 5th April, 2021 by the Learned Trial Court. Admittedly on that day the petitioner/ defendant did not appear and the application for amendment was dismissed. 4. Subsequently the petitioner/defendant appeared on 12th August, 2021 and moved the present application for recalling of the order which was dismissed by the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order dated 26th March, 2021 there is an overwriting as to the next date of hearing. Learned counsel submits that the matter was adjourned to 8th November, 2021 which was later on overwritten as 5th April, 2021. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner were not aware about any directions passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court regarding the expeditious hearing, nor were they aware about the order dated 5th April, 2021 when the amendment application was rejected. 2 7. Learned counsel submits that amendment sought is crucial in nature. It has been submitted that the opposite party/petitioner had filed a suit for eviction claiming the petitioner/defendant as a licensee. However, subsequently the petitioner/defendant filed a suit for partition in respect of the same property against the opposite party/plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel submits that by way of amendment application the petitioner/ defendant wanted to bring this fact on record and the same is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. 9. The Court upon consideration of the submissions is of the view that petitioner failed to make out any case for his non appearance on 5th April, 2021. Firstly the petitioner is challenging the genuineness and authenticity of the order dated 26th March, 2021 which was passed in presence of both the parties. The court should go by the presumption of the correctness of judicial order on record. If there was any overwriting, petitioner could have immediately invited the attention of the Court but the same was not 3 done. Secondly, the petitioner/ defendant is supposed to follow up the case diligently and he cannot take any excuse of non-appearance without any reasonable cause. Thirdly, the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 5th April, 2021 and challenged the order dated 25th March, 2022 in September, 2022. All this reflects casual approach of the petitioner and the possibility of the intention of delaying the matter. 10. The Court considers that there is no substance in the petition. 11. The Court considers that present petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all usual requisite formalities. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.) 4