36 04.09. 2025 Ct. No. 06 Ab IN THE HIGH C0URT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION. CO 3286 of 2025 Sri Susanta Pal Vs. Smt. Srabani Mukherjee. --------------- Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Mr. Jitendra Patnaik. … for the petitioner. 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant/petitioner and is directed against an order being no. 62 dated 7th August 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 49 of 2021. 2. An application under Section 7(2) of the 1997 Act was disposed of by an order dated 9th June 2025 by directing the petitioner to pay the arrears amount of Rs. 26,331/- in a single installment to the plaintiff/opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the said order. The petitioner prayed for extension of time to comply with the said order and the learned Trial Judge by an order dated 8th July 2025 allowed the petitioner to deposit the arrear amount in a single payment on 7th August 2025. 3. On 7th August 2025, the learned Trial Judge after noting that the defendant/petitioner herein did not file the challan of Rs. 26,331/- and struck off the defence of the petitioner in accordance with Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act. Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 8th July 2025 and 7th August 2025 in this civil revision application. 2 4. Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner could not arrange the amount on account of arrears rent in terms of the order dated 9th June 2025 and for which the petitioner could not deposit the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order. The petitioner, accordingly, filed an application praying for extension of time and the learned Trial Judge by an order dated 8th July 2025 extended the time to deposit the said amount. Mr. Chaturvedi further submits that the petitioner somehow arranged the said amount and paid the same to the learned Advocate for depositing the said amount before the learned Trial Judge. He further submits that on 7th August 2025 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was directed to deposit, the father in-law of the learned Advocate felt ill and the learned Advocate after filing the Hazira had to leave the Court to attend his father in-law. He, thus, submits that due to such unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the said amount on that date. 5. On an query of the Court, as to whether the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court the aforesaid fact, Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, in his usual fairness submits that no step was taken by the petitioner in that regard before the learned Trial Judge. 6. As to whether the petitioner paid the said amount to the learned Advocate or that the learned Advocate had to leave the Court on that day immediately after filing the Hazira are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the first time. 7. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served if the petitioner 3 is given liberty to file an appropriate application before the learned Trial Judge. 8. In such view, CO 3286 of 2025 stands disposed of without interfering with the impugned order at this stage, but by giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the learned Trial Judge for appropriate reliefs. 9. If such application is filed, the learned Trial Judge shall consider the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)