Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1822/2011 on 2 September, 2011
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
09.11
ab
C.O. 1822 of 2011
Mr. S. Banerjee,
... for the opposite party no. 1
The revisional application was listed yesterday. None
appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for
the opposite party no. 1 was directed to serve notice on the
learned advocate for the petitioner intimating him that this
application shall be heard today.
Notice has duly been served. None appears for the petitioner.
Copy of the notice shall be retained with the records.
The facts giving rise to this revisional application have
been narrated in substantial detail in the earlier order of this
Court dated 28.06.2011 and hence are not repeated.
Mr. Banerjee has placed before this Court a copy of the order
dated 18.07.2011 passed by the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil
Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 686 of 2007. On a contested
hearing, the learned Judge rejected the application under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner.
Mr. Banerjee has also invited the attention of the Court to
an application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and
2 of the Code read with Sections 94 and 151 thereof dated
14.03.2007. On perusal of paragraph 14 thereof, it appears that
the petitioner, as far back as in March, 2007 had knowledge
regarding institution of Ejectment Execution Case No. 168 of 2006
and that the next date of hearing of the application filed by the
2
opposite party no. 1 under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code, giving
rise to Misc. Case No. 259 of 2006, was fixed for hearing on
16.03.2007.
It is contended that despite such knowledge, the petitioner initially did not take any step to implead himself in the said misc. case. Long thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for addition of party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code in connection with the said misc. case, which has been rejected by the order under challenge.
Considering the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in his favour. If indeed the petitioner was interested in getting himself impleaded in Misc. Case no. 259/06, he could have approached the executing Court earlier. The facts and circumstances of the case unmistakably point to the malafides of the petitioner in attempting to procrastinate proceedings.
There is no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The revisional application stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
The learned Judge is requested to expedite Misc. Case No. 259/06. Subject to his convenience, it would be desirable if the same is disposed of by the end of November, 2011.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.
(Dipankar Datta, J) 3