Judgment : Asim Kumar Mondal, J. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order No. 125 dated October 6th, 2012 passed by the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No. 72 of 2001. The opposite parties as plaintiff instituted a suit being ejectment suit no. 72 of 2001 against one Dhirendra Nath Patra, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and proforma opposite parties for a decree of recovery of khas possession of the tenanted property on the ground of reasonable requirements. The original defendant after entering into appearance filed application under Section 17(1) and 17(2) read with Section 17(2A) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act raising the dispute as to arrear of rent due and the relationship of landlord and tenant. On August 28th, 2001 the application under Section 17(1) and 17(2) of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was fixed for hearing and on that day the learned advocate engaged by the petitioners / defendants did not appear when the matter was called on for hearing. Learned Trial Court disposed of the said application ex-parte in absence of the defendants by holding that the defendant is a defaulter in making payment of rent since July, 1992 and accordingly the defendants were directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. 6025/- as arrear rent. The petitioners were in dark about the order passed on August 28th, 2011 under Section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act as their learned lawyer neither intimated about the disposal of the said application nor about the passing of the said order with a direction to deposit the arrear rents. The original defendant was the only earning member of the family suddenly died and due to the distressed financial conditions the petitioners could not deposit the arrear rent as well as current rent in respect of the said tenancy. The opposite parties filed petition before the learned Trial court under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act for an order striking out of the defence against delivery of khas possession. The said petition under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was also disposed of ex-parte on 13.09.2005 whereby the learned Trial court have allowed the said petition striking out the defence against delivery of possession ex-parte. The said petition under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act was also disposed of ex-parte on 13.09.2005 whereby the learned Trial court have allowed the said petition striking out the defence against delivery of possession ex-parte. Under such circumstances an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioners praying for an order for recalling of the order dated September 13th, 2005. The learned Trial court by order impugned being order No. 125 dated October 6th, 2012 has been pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application on the ground that the learned Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the order impugned and further that the learned Court below committed wrong for not taking into consideration the backdrop of the whole case as made out in the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Asit Baran Rout with Mr. Tuhin Subhra Rout appears for the petitioner. Mr. Rout submits that the petitioners are rustic village ladies. The original defendant at the relevant point of time was suffered from various diseases and as such he was not in a position to proceed with the matter diligently. The learned advocate entrusted on behalf of the petitioners to conduct the said case in Trial Court, did not take any steps and he did not appear when the said matter was called on for hearing. The learned advocate neither informed nor taken alternative steps in depositing the arrear rent directed by the Trial Court. Mr. Rout further submits that due to sudden death of the original defendant and due to distressed financial conditions the petitioners could not deposit the arrear as well as the current rent in time. Admittedly the petitioners do not always resides in the suit property and sometime they used to reside at different places. So, one Manik Patra was entrusted to look after the property. It is alleged by Mr. Rout that said Manik Patra also did not diligently look after the case. Mr. Rout submits and argues that the learned Trial Court has fixed a date for depositing arrear rents at his own discretion, so the learned Trial court obviously has the jurisdiction to extend the said date for depositing the arrear rent. Mr. It is alleged by Mr. Rout that said Manik Patra also did not diligently look after the case. Mr. Rout submits and argues that the learned Trial Court has fixed a date for depositing arrear rents at his own discretion, so the learned Trial court obviously has the jurisdiction to extend the said date for depositing the arrear rent. Mr. Rout mainly pressed on his argument on the ground of latches, negligence on the part of the conducting lawyers. Mr. Rout relying upon a decision of High Court of Calcutta reported in 1986 (II) CHN at page 211 submits that the Court has discretion to extend the time for making the payment of instalments. Once the court has fixed the time for making the payment, the court retains the power to enlarge the time for complying with the order. If the court has the power to fix it also has the power to refix it. This is, however, not automatic. It is only if the Court is satisfied that the facts and circumstances of this case warrants such extension. The learned Trial Court did not consider the background of the whole case as submitted by him and also learned Trial court failed to appreciate and consider that there was sufficient grounds as to why petitioners could not appear and take appropriate steps in time. The learned lawyer entrusted by the petitioners appears was very much negligent in conducting the case. As a result the petitioner was in dark about the adverse orders passed against them. The grounds as taken in the petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the distressed pecuniary condition of the petitioner should have been considered by the learned Trial Court. Mr. Partha Pratim Roy with Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy appear on behalf of the opposite parties and submits that the grounds as made out in the petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code appears not justified and as such the order of the learned Trial Court is perfectly correct and requires no interference of this Hon’ble Court. The poverty or incapacity to pay cannot be the only ground for relief. Mr. Roy further submits that the judicial discretion of a Court cannot be said as a matter of right. Allegation against a lawyer without any supported documents or chance to defend the lawyer, should not be considered or entertained. Mr. The poverty or incapacity to pay cannot be the only ground for relief. Mr. Roy further submits that the judicial discretion of a Court cannot be said as a matter of right. Allegation against a lawyer without any supported documents or chance to defend the lawyer, should not be considered or entertained. Mr. Roy further submits that it is not a case for extension of time to deposit the arrear rent. In the petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code his prayer for recalling of an order dated September 13th, 2008 in the said order. Learned Trial court in disposing of application under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act has observed that the defendant has not complied with the order dated August 25th, 2001 and has not deposited the current rent in respect of suit premises. Non-compliance of the provision under Section 17(1) and 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, compelled the Court for striking out the defence of the defendant. It is also further submitted by Mr. Roy that provision under Section 151 is not applicable where there is alternative remedies. The matter should be considered under the backdrop of the case as stated by the petitioners to decide where there is any latches or not. Mr. Roy relied upon the decision of 2004 (8) SCC page 307 and 2008 (2) SCC 488 further AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1252. I have carefully perused the order impugned being No. 125 dated October 6th, 2012 and order being No. 71 dated September 13, 12005. Further I consider the submissions advanced by the learned lawyers for the parties and the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Court as referred by the learned counsels of the parties. It appears to me that the learned Trial court passed the order dated August 25th, 2001 under Section 17(1) and 17(2) read with Section 17(2A) (b) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act holding that the petitioner is defaulter and directed to deposit the arrear rents within a certain period. It should be taken into note that the said order was passed in the year 2001. Thereafter, after lapse of four years on September 13th, 2005 the petition under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed by the opposite parties was disposed of. It should be taken into note that the said order was passed in the year 2001. Thereafter, after lapse of four years on September 13th, 2005 the petition under Section 17(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act filed by the opposite parties was disposed of. In both the dates none appears on behalf of the petitioners and both the orders were passed ex-parte. After lapse of six or seven years writ petitioners filed the petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to recall the order dated September 13th, 2005 and also a prayer to deposit the arrear rents. The only grounds as made out by the petitioners for such inordinate delay is negligent / carelessness and lack of diligence in conducting the suit of the lawyer entrusted by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the learned lawyer did not inform the petitioners in time. Other two grounds as taken by the petitioner are distressed financial condition and ignorant of law as rustic ladies. The allegation against the learned lawyers is not at all acceptable as the said learned lawyer did not get any chance to defend himself, and petitioner has not file a single document in that effect. The question of distressed financial condition is also not acceptable as the original defendant died in the year 1994. It is not expected that a litigant will remain sleeping for years together knowing fully well that a suit is pending and is proceeding in a competent Court of law. There is nothing to note in the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code or in the present revisional application as to when and how the petitioners came to know about the adverse orders passed against them, which has been passed long back. In fact, there is nothing to observe as to why such a petition has been filed after lapse of six or seven years of passing the order impugned. There is another aspect in the revisional application that the order dated September 13th, 2005 has not been challenged. It has merely prayed to recall under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The inherent power of the Court cannot be invoked in all the cases where there is alternative remedy lies. There is another aspect in the revisional application that the order dated September 13th, 2005 has not been challenged. It has merely prayed to recall under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The inherent power of the Court cannot be invoked in all the cases where there is alternative remedy lies. On the facts of this case it does appear to me that the petitioner did no have sufficient cause for not depositing the amount of rent for such a long period of time. The court has the power to extend the time for depositing the arrear rents. Such power has to be exercised judicially. In the impugned order on careful consideration I find that learned Trial court has exercised his jurisdiction properly and judicially. There is no scope to interfere into the order impugned as the grounds stated in the petition under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code appears not cogent and proper. The order in question is not illegal and it has not been obtained by practising fraud by the opposite parties. In the result the present revisional application having no merit is liable to be dismissed with costs. The order being No. 125 dated October 6th, 2012 remains uninterfered. In view of the long pendency of the suit I take the opportunity to request the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from this date.