A. 877 16.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 1424 of 2026 Nagendra Lal Dhar -versus- Shanti Devi Mantry Mr. Sannidhya Dutta Mr. Projit Dutta ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order dated 30th August, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Bidhannagar in Misc. Case No. 58 of 2022. By the judgement and order impugned the miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of being served with the copy of the summons the opposite party did not appear in the said suit and did not contest the same. Accordingly the learned trial judge had no other alternative but to fix the suit for ex parte hearing and to pass an ex parte decree of ejectment. The learned trial judge took note of the fact that after service of summons the defendant/opposite party appeared on 18th February, 2021 and 9th April, 2021 was fixed for filing the written statement. The learned trial 2 judge further noted that the vital document which was required for the preparation of the written statement was not served by the plaintiff/petitioner herein. The learned trial judge also noted that in the meantime lock down was imposed and e-court portal was also not updated for which the learned advocate for the defendant was not able to get the date of hearing. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the date was fixed on 10th March, 2022 for filing the written statement but due to sudden illness of the junior advocate he could not attend and the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing. The learned trial judge took note of the document produced by the petitioner which was marked as exhibit 1 to 3 and the applicant in the miscellaneous case was examined as PW-1. The learned trial judge after considering the materials on record and taking note of the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties observed that during Covid situation and imposition of nation wide lock down the court proceeding was also affected and the appearance of the litigant before the court were also restricted. The staff member of every court were also restrained by Covid SOP issued by the Central as well as State Government. Thus, this Court finds that the learned trial judge was satisfied that due to the prevailing Covid situation the applicant in the miscellaneous case i.e. the opposite party 3 herein was prevented from participating in the proceedings. The learned trial judge exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant in the miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure by assigning cogent reasons in support thereof. At this stage, it would also be relevant to take note of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a suo motu writ petition also extended the period of limitation under several statutes considering the impact of Covid-19 pandemic. Considering the fact that the Covid 19 pandemic affected the court proceedings and the appearance of the litigants were also restricted during that period, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned trial judge. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed beyond the period of limitation and the same was condoned without any application being filed in support thereof. Considering the peculiar facts of this case and also that the learned trial judge heard the matter on merits upon condonation of marginal delay, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly C.O. 1424 of 2026 stands dismissed. 4 At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged more than ninety years. The learned trial judge is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of Ejectment Suit No. 25 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)