Court No. 6 (265719) 17.09.2026 (A 1371) (S. Banerjee) CO 2391 of 2025 Jamaluddin Ahmed Siddique Vs. Imran Abbas Ansari & Anr. Mr. Jit Roy Mr. Joydeep Dhar …for the petitioner Mr. S. N. Dutta Mr. M. K. Sharma …for the opposite-parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against orders dated March 21, 2025 and March 26, 2025, both passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Appeal no. 24 of 2024. By the order dated March 21, 2025 the learned Judge of the appellate Court condoned the delay in filing the misc. appeal subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the office of the DLSA, Kolkata within a time limit and Section 5 application was thus allowed subject to payment of the said amount and the matter was posted on March 26, 2025 for orders on merits of the misc. appeal. However, on March 26, 2025 the leaned Judge of the appellate Court after noting that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been deposited, disposed of the 2 misc. appeal thereby setting aside the order passed by the learned trial judge rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial judge rejected the misc. case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code by a reasoned order which has been reversed by the appellate Court by a totally non-speaking order. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the learned Judge of the appellate Court only condoned the delay subject to payment of cost. He submits that it is well-settled that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be construed liberally. Both the orders dated March 21, 2025 and March 26, 2025 are extracted hereinbelow: “ Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2024 Present: Jayashree Banerjee, Chief Judge Order No. 6, dated 21.03.2025: This Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the defendant who was received summon to appear in the sit properly and adequately. After the initial appearance, the defendant failed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court and the reason that has been assigned before the Ld. Trial Court while the Ld. Trial Court was hearing the application for setting aside the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court as well as before this Court while the appeal was being heard, were frivolous, unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted by this Court. However, for ends of justice the appellants are given an opportunity to contest the Suit. 3 This Court therefore condones the delay in filing the instant Misc. Appeal subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in the Office of D.L.S.A. Kolkata by 25.03.2025. The Section 5 application is thus allowed subject to payment of the amount mentioned hereinabove. The matter is posted on 26.03.2025 for order on merit of the Misc. Appeal upon submitting the receipt issued by the D.L.S.A., Kolkata. Dictated & Corrected by me. Sd/- Sd/- Chief Judge. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta” “ Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2024 Present: Jayashree Banerjee, Chief Judge Order No. 7/dated 26.03.2025: Ld. Counsel for the appellants is present. Receipt of Rs. 20,000/- issued by the D.L.S.A, Kolkata is placed before this Court pursuant to the order passed on 21.03.2025. Having received the receipt showing depositing of Rs. 20,000/- before the D.L.S.A., Kolkata, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of rejecting the application of the appellants under Order 9 Rule 13 on the grounds of delay alone. The said order is set aside directing the Trial Court to allow the appellant herein to contest the suit without giving any adjournment and fixing the suit giving consecutive dates as the business of the Court permits and thereafter dispose of the suit within two months from the date of receiving the order of this Court. The Misc. Appeal no. 24 of 2024 thus stands disposed of accordingly. Dictated & Corrected by me. Sd/- Sd/- Chief Judge. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta” (emphasis supplied) 4 On a bare reading of the order dated March 21, 2025 it appears to this Court that the delay in filing the misc. appeal was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- and the learned Judge of the appellate court fixed March 26, 2025 for order on merits of the misc. appeal. However, on March 26, 2025 the learned Judge of the appellate court after recording that the payment of Rs. 20,000/- has been made and also that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed on the ground of limitation, had set aside the order passed by the learned trial judge with a direction upon the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit within two months. When the learned trial judge dismissed the misc. case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, by recording reasons in support thereof, the appellate Court is expected to consider the matter on merits and pass a reasoned order. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta failed to perform its duty as is required to be done by an appellate court and allowed the appeal thereby setting the ex parte decree by a cryptic, unreasoned and confusing order. For such reason, this Court is inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. 5 Accordingly, the orders dated March 21, 2025 and March 26, 2025 are set aside. The Misc. Appeal No. 24 of 2024 stands restored to the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta with a direction upon the learned Judge of the appellate court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the first date that may be fixed in the misc. appeal pursuant to this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The learned judge of the appellate court shall be free to decide the misc. appeal being uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in this order and by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)