Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Paramananda Jena vs Kartick Ojha on 21 June, 2017
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
21.6.2017
Item No. 98
Court No. 14
ac
S.A. 421 of 2016
(CAN 203 of 2017)
Paramananda Jena
-versus-
Kartick Ojha
Mr. Goutam Chakrborty,
Mr. Karna Mukherjee.
... For the Appellant/
Petitioner.
Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty.
... For the Respondent/
Opposite Party.
Re : CAN 203 of 2017.
At the time when this application is taken up for hearing, our attention is brought to some typographical mistakes in the order dated 13th September, 2016 by Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, learned advocate for the appellant.
It is pointed out that while staying the further proceeding of the execution case, we have described the said execution case as Title Execution Case No. 115 of 2013 instead of describing the execution case as Ejectment Execution Case No. 115 of 2013.
Accordingly, we direct that the expression 'Title' mentioned in the last line of page 2 of the order dated 13th September, 2016 will be read as 'Ejectment'.
The order dated 13th September, 2016 is corrected accordingly.
While staying all further proceeding of the Title Execution case, we imposed certain conditions upon the appellant in our order dated 13th September, 2016. One of such conditions was that the defendant/ appellant will have to deposit all arrear occupational charges upto the month of October, 2016 at the rate at which he was directed to deposit by the learned First Appellate Court, in the executing court within 15th November, 2016.
It is stated in this application that the appellant took all necessary steps for depositing such arrear occupational charges, even the challan was also passed allowing him to deposit such arrear occupational charges by the learned First Appellate Court on 8th November, 2016. However, due to demonetisation of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes by the Central Government, the petitioner could not arrange necessary fund for depositing such arrear occupational charges within 15th November, 2016. Ultimately such arrear occupational charges was deposited by the appellant in the First Appellate Court on 28th November, 2016.
Considering the reason for non-compliance of the Court's order which was beyond control of the appellant, we condone the delay on the part of the appellant in depositing arrear occupational charges, beyond time. The deposit which was so made by the appellant in a different forum, i.e. before the learned First Appellate Court, is also condoned.
The plaintiff/respondent is permitted to withdraw such deposited amount without furnishing any security from the learned First Appellate Court upon compliance of necessary formalities in this regard.
The defendant/appellant has also failed to comply with the other condition which was imposed upon him for enjoying the stay order. The defendant was also required to pay the current occupational charges of the suit premises, commencing from the month of November, 2016 till the disposal of the appeal at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month in the executing court. First of such deposit was directed to be made for the month of November, 2016 within 7th December, 2016 and for the subsequent month within 7th of each following month. The defendant could not deposit the occupational charges for the month of November, 2016 due to demonetisation of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes by the Central Government.
An extension was sought for by the appellant in the executing court, but such prayer was not allowed.
Be that as it may, Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that his client will deposit the entire arrear occupational charges from the month of November, 2016 till May, 2017 at the rate as mentioned in the order dated 13th September, 2016; within a week.
We, thus, extend the time for depositing such arrear occupational charges upto the month of May, 2017 by 30th June, 2017 positively. Such deposit will be made in the executing court.
It is, further clarified that in case such deposit is made, the respondent will be permitted to withdraw such deposited amount without furnishing any security therefor.
In default of compliance of any of the directions as mentioned above and if the condition regarding deposit of occupational charges for the current months is not complied with, the interim stay will stand vacated and in that event the learned executing court will be free to proceed with the execution case.
On the prayer of Mr. Chakraborty, time for depositing the special messenger's cost for brining the lower court's record is extended till 23rd June, 2017.
The application for modification being CAN 203 of 2017 is, thus, disposed of.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Asha Arora, J.) 1 4