CRP 101/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who is the defendant in Money Suit No.2/2009, by the pre sent petition has challenged the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by the learned Mu nsiff, North Salmara, Abhayapuri, in Money Suit No.2/2009 rejecting the applicat ion filed by him under Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civi l Procedure for vacating the order dated 08.09.2009, whereby and whereunder the suit was directed to proceed ex-parte. The present respondents instituted the Money Suit No.2/2009 in the Court of the learned Munsiff, North Salmara at Abhayapuri claiming certain amount fro m the present petitioner as defendant. The suit was fixed on 08.09.2009 i.e. 90t h day of the service of summons on the petitioner/defendant, for filing the writ ten statement. On that date an application was filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner praying for adjournment on the ground of illness of the petitione r, which prayer has been rejected by the learned Trial Court and it has been dir ected that the suit shall proceed ex-parte. The petitioner thereafter on 26.10.2 009 filed an application praying for vacating the order to proceed ex-parte date d 08.09.2009 and to allow him to file the written statement contending inter ali a that on 08.09.2009 i.e. the date fixed for filing the written statement the pe titioner could not appear, as he was suffering from illness and was under treatm ent from 07.09.2009 to 08.09.2009, during which period he was advised rest by th e doctor. The petitioner had enclosed the medical certificate dated 09.09.2009 t o the said application. The learned Munsiff upon consideration of the application filed, rejecte d the said prayer on the ground that in the medical certificate dated 09.09.2009 it has not been mentioned that the petitioner was advised complete bed rest and as such there was no impediment on the part of the petitioner for not appearing before the Court on 08.09.2009 and to file the written statement. It appears from the impugned order passed by the learned Munsiff that th e contention of the petitioner that he was suffering from illness on 08.09.2009 and as such he was under treatment of the doctor, who advised him rest, has not been disbelieved by the learned Court below. The medical certificate dated 09.09 .2009, which is also available on record of this petition reveals that as the pe titioner was suffering from cardiomyopathy, he was advised rest from 07.09.2009 and 08.09.2009. Having advised rest, the petitioner did not appear before the Co urt on 08.09.2009. The learned Court below in view of the said position ought to have accepted the grounds shown by the petitioner in not appearing on 08.09.200 9 in the said suit. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.02.2010 is set aside. The petitioner shall be allowed to contest the suit by filing written statement, which shall be filed before the learned Court below on 08.10.2010. The petition er, however, shall pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents, who are the plai ntiffs in the suit. Such cost shall be deposited on 08.10.2010. In case of failu re on the part of the petitioner to pay the cost, the written statement shall no t be accepted and the suit shall proceed ex-parte. The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with cost .