Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rash Behari Ghosh & Ors vs Biswanath Pandit & Anr on 2 November, 2016
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
1
21.
02.11.2016
mb
In the High Court At Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
C.O. 3903 of 2016
Rash Behari Ghosh & Ors.
-Vs.-
Biswanath Pandit & Anr.
Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya,
Mr. Uttiya Roy
...for the petitioners
This revisional application is at the instance of the plaintiffs-
decree holders in T.S. No. 194 of 2001, which was filed before the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Additional Court,
Burdwan.
The facts giving rise to this revisional application are that the
said suit was an Ejectment Suit wherein the petitioners claimed a
decree for eviction of the opposite party no. 1 from the suit
property. The learned trial Judge dismissed the Ejectment Suit of
the petitioners ex parte and the petitioners carried the said decree
for dismissal before the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Fast
Track Court, Burdwan by filing an appeal, being T.A. No. 82 of
2002. The learned first appellate Court, however, reversed the
judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and
decreed the Eviction Suit ex parte as against the opposite party no.
1.Thereafter, the petitioners, as the decree-holders, filed the Title Execution Case No. 1 of 2015 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Additional Court, Burdwan praying for execution of the eviction decree by recovering the possession of the 2 suit property from the opposite party no. 1. During the pendency of the said execution application, the opposite party no. 2, who was not a party to the said Ejectment Suit, filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for restoration of the said ejectment suit, his impleadment in the said suit and to grant him an opportunity to contest the said suit. According to the petitioners, the said application filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 47 of the Code is not maintainable and they moved an application before the learned Court below for rejection of the said application of the opposite party no. 2. By the order dated July 14, 2016, the learned Court below rejected the said application of the petitioners. It is the said order dated July 14, 2016 passed by the learned Court below, which has been challenged in the present revisional application.
Having considered the materials on record, I find prima facie substance in the submission advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order.
Accordingly, there shall be an interim order directing stay of all further proceedings in Misc. Case No. 6 of 2016 pending before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 2nd Additional Court, Burdwan till November 30, 2016 or until further order, whichever is earlier.
Let, this application appear under the heading "Contested Application" on November 21, 2016.
The petitioners are directed to serve copies of this application, together with copies of this order on the opposite parties by speed post with acknowledgement due. The petitioners will also be at liberty to serve copies of this application, together with the copies of this order on the learned advocates representing the respective opposite parties before the learned Court below.
3The petitioners shall file an affidavit of service on the next date of hearing.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the petitioners upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)