ORDER :- Pursuant to the order dated 18th June, 2007 service of the petitioner was effected on the opposite parties by Speed Post with Acknowledgment Due. The envelopes have been returned with the endorsement "refused". Refusal to accept service .amounts to good service and the opposite parties are deemed to have been served. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an Order dated 28th February, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, 13th Bench of the Court of the City Civil Court, Calcutta dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 36 of 2005 from an Order No. 112 dated 26th August, 2005 or the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. 30 of 2004 whereby the Learned Chief Judge rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 9 for recalling of an ex parte order dated 3rd January, 2004 dismissing the earlier application of the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 3rd March, 1998 in Ejectment Suit No. 387 of 1994. 3. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner had been informed by his lawyer that the next date for hearing of the said Misc. Case No. 30 of 2004 had been fixed on 12th January, 2004. 4. The learned Court below has apparently disbelieved the uncontroverted evidence of the lawyer Mr. Goutam Misra who gave oral evidence before the learned Court below, the uncontroverted evidence of his law clerk. The case diary had duly been tendered in evidence before the Appellate Court. 5. The Appellate Court found that although more than one lawyer had been engaged, only one had deposed and further took notice of the fact that after 30th October, 2003 there was another date of hearing that is 29th November. 2003, on which date too no one had appeared, and held that the evidence tendered was not believable. There is no finding with regard to the extent of participation of the other lawyers if any in the proceedings. 6. In any case if a litigant is informed by any one of his lawyer of the date of hearing he may reasonably assume the same to be correct. A litigant may not reverify the date from other lawyers. 7. The finding of the Appellate Court that the appellant was trying to "avoid" the date of hearing is apparently conjectural. 6. In any case if a litigant is informed by any one of his lawyer of the date of hearing he may reasonably assume the same to be correct. A litigant may not reverify the date from other lawyers. 7. The finding of the Appellate Court that the appellant was trying to "avoid" the date of hearing is apparently conjectural. It is difficult to understand why any lawyer should deliberately avoid a date for hearing an application for setting aside an ex parte decree, passed against his client knowing fully well that the decree might be put into execution. If any lawyer deliberately avoids a date of hearing of an application for recalling of an exparte decree knowing that the decree might be put into execution, the lawyer would be guilty of gross misconduct for which the litigant should not suffer. 8. The Appellate Court apparently did not consider the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 . The learned Court below having found that more than one lawyer had been engaged ought to have considered that there was not much that the petitioner litigant could have done after engaging lawyers. 9. As held by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above having engaged lawyers, instructed them and paid them or alternatively agreed to have paid them, there was not much that a litigant could do. 10. The impugned order of the Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Appellate Court shall bear the appeal afresh within thirty days from the date of communication of this order. 11. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner on compliance of requisite formalities. Order accordingly.