AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: -Basically this is a suit for decree on account of ejectment as against the defendant in respect of the portion of the suit premises described in Schedule-'a' hereto along with other reliefs which are connected with the prime relief. ( 2 ) IT appears that originally the suit was appearing in the Court of appropriate Assistant District Judge, Asansol being Title Ejectment Suit No. 100 of 1992, which was subsequently transferred to this Court. A defect arose in respect of hearing of the suit since from the record it was appearing that the suit was dismissed before the same Court from which it was transferred to this Court. Subsequently, several orders were passed but nowhere the formality of regularisation of the suit by recalling the order passed earlier was made. As a result whereof in spite of hearing the spit on merit this Court was not pleased to pass a decree but directed the matter to appear under the heading 'to be mentioned' for the purpose of necessary clarification. However, upon hearing them on that score, this Court was pleased to direct the plaintiff to take out a formal application for recalling the order dated 28th April, 1998 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Alipore. ( 3 ) IT appears that the law is very clear in this respect. If the suit was appearing before any Court and subsequently transferred to another Court, such Court do possess all such powers of the erstwhile Court from which the suit was transferred. In other words, the transferee Court will act as a transferor Court in all respects in the case of transferred suit. Therefore, upon hearing them at length for recalling the order and upon perusing a Note-Sheet forwarded by the Registrar, Original Side in this respect. I have pass an order in favour of the petitioner by recalling and setting aside the order passed by the Court of Asistant District Judge of Asansol. ( 4 ) FACTUALLY, it appears from the record that the dismissal order was passed after the order of transfer which was communicated to the transferor Court subsequent to the order of dismissal. Therefore, that is purely a technical defect on the part of either of the Court. Under such circumstances too the order passed by the Court below has to be recalled and set aside. Therefore, that is purely a technical defect on the part of either of the Court. Under such circumstances too the order passed by the Court below has to be recalled and set aside. ( 5 ) THEREFORE order of dismissal of the suit as passed by the transferor Court stands recalled and set aside. ( 6 ) SO far the merit of the suit is concerned, the plaintiffs contended that the suit was filed for ejectment with other prayers as far back as on July 1992. The plaintiff No. 1 is a original owner who has entered into a promoting agreement with the plaintiff No. 2. They have jointly made their grievances as against the State defendants herein. It appears from a certificate given by or on behalf of the Registrar on 6th November 1998 that defendants have not entered appearance either in person or through advocate atleast till 5th November 1998. Such certificate is to be kept with the record. ( 7 ) IT also appears from the order sheets of the trial Court that several adjournments were taken by or on behalf of the defendants but inspite of taking adjournment for the purpose of filing written statement with or without costs no step has been taken. Therefore, it can be presumed that neither of the defendants is ready and willing to contest the suit. ( 8 ) EVEN thereafter as and when the suit was called on for hearing Mr. Tapan Dutt, learned Advocate on record of the State of West Bengal appeared and sought for adjournment for the purpose of taking instruction but thereafter no communication is made this Court in this respect by him. ( 9 ) UNDER the circumstances, I feel that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief even in their absence. ( 10 ) NOW the question is as to what extent the relief or reliefs would be granted and whether such relief would be granted by examining the witnesses or without examining the witnesses. Mr. Karuna Shankar Roy, learned senior counsel with able assistance of Mrs. Swapna Mukherjee, learned counsel cited a decision reported in AIR 1936 Bombay 285 (Shriram Surajmal v. Shriram Jhunjhunwalla) to establish that under Order 8 Rule 5 every allegation of fact in the plaint must be taken as admitted unless denied or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant. Swapna Mukherjee, learned counsel cited a decision reported in AIR 1936 Bombay 285 (Shriram Surajmal v. Shriram Jhunjhunwalla) to establish that under Order 8 Rule 5 every allegation of fact in the plaint must be taken as admitted unless denied or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant. Hence, where there was no pleading of the defendant there can be no denial or non admission on his part and he is bound by all the allegations in the plaint. Subsequently, they also cited another decision reported in (1988) 4 SCC 619 (Modula Invia v. Kamakshya Singh Deo) and upon relying upon paragraph 23 of the same contended that under Rule 5 (2) where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce Judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plant except against a person under disability but the Court may in its discretion require any such fact to be proved. It will be seen that those rules are only permissive in nature. They enable the Court in an appropriate case to pronounce a decree straightway on the basis of the plaint and the averments contained therein. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, under no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that no decree can be passed under such circumstances straightway without ascertaining the position by way of witness action. ( 12 ) NOW the second question has come forward as to what extent decree can be passed. It appears that the relief or reliefs, as indicated before, is basically in the nature of eviction with certain incidental reliefs. But another part is there i. e. in respect of declaration that signed blank sheets of papers made over by the plaintiff No. 1 to the defendants in the manner as stated in paragraph 3 above are void and/or avoidable at the instance of the plaintiff No. 1 and that the plaintiff No. 1 has duly avoided the same and the papers mentioned in prayer (a) be directed to be delivered up to and cancelled by this Court in terms of prayers (a) and (b ). However this will be the presumption of the Court in this respect in absence of the defendants to give an appropriate decree for eviction in terms of prayer (c ). But no separate decree can be sought in this respect. However this will be the presumption of the Court in this respect in absence of the defendants to give an appropriate decree for eviction in terms of prayer (c ). But no separate decree can be sought in this respect. Therefore taking into totality of the circumstances there will be decree in terms of prayer (c ). ( 13 ) SO far other incidental prayer or prayers in respect of mandatory relief, enquiry into damages, mesne profits etc. are concerned not pressed by the plaintiffs as such no decree is passed by this Court. ( 14 ) SO far the prayers (f) and (g) and other incidental prayers are concerned, since this Court has already passed a decree in terms of prayer (c), further reliefs in terms of (f) and (g) become redundant. No decree is passed as to costs. Let the decree be drawn up expeditiously. Order accordinglY.