JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. J. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.11.2021 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.377/2021 arising out of Title Suit No.3/2021. Vide the said impugned order, the Court below rejected the application to vacate the order of ex-parte against the petitioner on the ground that the application has been filed under wrong provision of law and also was neither supported by verification nor by any affidavit. 3. The facts of the instant case is that the Respondent herein as the Plaintiff had instituted the suit against the Defendant who is the Petitioner herein. The said suit was filed for a decree for eviction of the Defendant from the lease premises described in Schedule B and C to the plaint; for arrear rent of Rs.17,00,000/- alongwith interest thereon @18% per annum which comes to Rs.20,06,000/-as on the date of filing of the suit; for pendente lite and future interest as well as for future rent in respect to the Schedule B and C premises. 4. Pursuant to the filing of the said suit being Title Suit No.3/2021, the Court issued summons on 06.01.2021 fixing 11.02.2021 for SR/WS. On 11.02.2021 the Defendant appeared and filed Vakalatnama along with a petition bearing No.75/2021 praying for fixing another date for filing of the written statement stating that she had not received the documents filed with the plaint. The Trial Court allowed the said petition and directed the Petitioner to receive the documents which were already on record and fixed 26.02.2021 for written statement. However, on 26.02.2021, none has appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and accordingly, the Trial Court fixed 09.03.2021 for necessary order. However, on 09.03.2021 as none has appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, the Court directed that the suit shall proceed ex-parte against the Defendant fixing 30.04.2021 for ex-parte evidence. Thereafter, on 10.03.2021, a petition was filed being Petition No.207/2021 by the Petitioner praying for vacating the ex-parte order. The Trial Court observed that the same shall be taken up on the next date fixed and the Petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the petition to the plaintiff and accordingly fixed the matter on 30.04.2021. Thereafter, on 10.03.2021, a petition was filed being Petition No.207/2021 by the Petitioner praying for vacating the ex-parte order. The Trial Court observed that the same shall be taken up on the next date fixed and the Petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the petition to the plaintiff and accordingly fixed the matter on 30.04.2021. Thereafter, on account of the COVID restrictions and the staggered hearing, the matter was not taken up till 18.09.2021 on which date the Petitioner was represented by another counsel and another petition was filed being Petition No.503/2021 under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 09.03.2021. The Trial Court directed the said application be registered as Misc. (J) Case and fixed on 29.10.2021 for necessary order. The said application was registered as Misc. (J) Case No.377/2021. 5. It further appears that on 29.10.2021, the Trial Court was of the opinion that before further proceeding with the suit, the said application under Order IX Rule 13 needs to be adjudicated upon and therefore fixed 18.11.2021 for necessary orders. In the meantime on 29.10.2021, the Trial Court also heard the Misc. (J) Case No.377/2021 and fixed 18.11.2021 for orders. Thereafter on 18.11.2021 the impugned order was passed which have been challenged in the instant proceedings. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the materials on record. It appears from the records that it was absolutely the fault of the counsel which have resulted in the malady and the difficulties faced by the Petitioner. It is not understandable as to when the Trial Court on 11.02.2021 had fixed the matter on 26.02.2021, the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the Petitioner before the Trial Court did not notice the said date or even did not check the case diary. The Petitioner is an aged lady and when the said application was moved through the counsel seeking an adjournment, it was the counsel who was duty bound to apprise the petitioner what is the next date. Even otherwise, it was also the responsibility of the counsel to check the order or even the case diary which is being maintained in the Court to find out what is the next date fixed. The Petitioner was given an impression that the next date was fixed on 10.03.2021. 7. Even otherwise, it was also the responsibility of the counsel to check the order or even the case diary which is being maintained in the Court to find out what is the next date fixed. The Petitioner was given an impression that the next date was fixed on 10.03.2021. 7. In the meantime, prior to 10.03.2021 the earlier counsel retired and on the basis of the said impression given to the Petitioner by her counsel, the Petitioner approached another counsel to engage him for the matter. Bona fidely, the Petitioner informed the newly engaged counsel that 10.03.2021 was the date fixed for filing of the written statement. The problems created by the counsel did not end there inasmuch as the newly engaged counsel also did not check the case diary or even the e-Court service when he was engaged as to when the next date is fixed and appeared on 10.03.2021 on which date, the newly engaged counsel came to learn that in the meantime the two dates have already gone and the Court vide the order dated 09.03.2021 had fixed the matter for the ex-parte evidence against the Defendant. Accordingly, the counsel on that day filed an application for vacating the ex-parte order. In the said application, it has been mentioned that out of mistake and oversight of the date which knowledge was not known to the newly engaged counsel of the Defendant, the date was missed. It was further mentioned that the ex-parte order dated 09.03.2021 be vacated and the Defendant promised to file her written statement on the next date which was on 30.04.2021. The said petition however was neither supported by any affidavit nor any verification. Thereafter, it appears that due to the COVID pandemic and the staggered hearing, the matter stood adjourned from 30.04.2021 to 18.09.2021. 8. The said counsel filed another application under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 09.03.2021. This application is also without any affidavit or verification. The reasons assigned in the said application was that the Defendant was a senior citizen who was served a copy of the summons on 09.02.2021 and had appeared along with her counsel on 11.02.2021 and she heard that the next date was on 10th March, 2021 and she had no idea what and where to see the date in the online application to make her double confirm. It surprises this Court the manner in which the said application was drafted and also to the statements made to the effect that the Defendant/Petitioner was a senior citizen taking into consideration that the Petitioner was 55 years old. This is not the manner in which such application should have been filed. 9. Be that as it may, the Trial Court rejected the said application on two grounds. The first is that as there was no decree, the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was not applicable and secondly, the said application was not filed with an affidavit. These two grounds were due to the fault of the counsel. The malady of the Petitioner does not end there. In the instant proceedings also when the matter was taken up by this court on 06.05.2022 and a perusal of petition shows that the essential facts on the basis of which the Petitioner sought for vacating the ex-parte order was not present in the instant petition. It is only by way of a subsequent affidavit filed on 03.08.2022 that the reasons why the Petitioner did not appear on the next date fixed for filing of the written statement have been mentioned in this additional affidavit. 10. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, and also upon perusal of the materials finds that it was due to the fault of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner which has resulted in the difficulties being faced by both the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant taking into account that the plaintiff’s suit has been delayed and the Defendant has been put to unnecessary harassment. 11. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned in the additional affidavit come within the ambit of a good cause under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code. More so, taking into consideration that the order dated 09.03.2021 whereby the suit proceedings would proceed ex-parte against the Petitioner was passed within the period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the summons and within the period the application was filed to vacate the order to proceed ex-parte. 12. Considering the above, this Court therefore sets aside the order dated 18.11.2021 and relegates the suit to the stage of filing of written statement. 12. Considering the above, this Court therefore sets aside the order dated 18.11.2021 and relegates the suit to the stage of filing of written statement. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner shall file her written statement on such date as may be fixed by this Court. Taking into account that the order dated 18.11.2021 is interfered with and the suit stands relegated to the stage of filing of the written statement, this Court permits the Petitioner to file her written statement on 02.11.2022. Upon filing the written statement on 02.11.2022, the Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 13. In the circumstances the petitioner does not file her written statement on 02.11.2022 as directed by this Court, the suit shall proceed in the manner it is proceeding at present. It is further observed that if the written statement is filed on 02.11.2022, the Court shall proceed in accordance with law and the plaintiff would be at liberty to file such additional evidence on affidavit, if so advised. 14. With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands allowed and disposed of.