Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Hironmoy Das vs Smt. Manu Kar & Ors on 22 March, 2022
Author: Subhasis Dasgupta
Bench: Subhasis Dasgupta
22.03.2022 Item No.28 Ct. No.7 CHC C.O.273 of 2022 (Physical Hearing) Sri Hironmoy Das Vs. Smt. Manu Kar & ors.
Mr. Abhijit Ray, Mr. Shubham Gupta ...for the petitioner The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 4th October, 2021, passed by learned Judge, 6th Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Execution Case No.76 of 2017, directing the decreeholder/petitioner to effect service of notice of the prayer for police help.
Mr. Abhijit Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner/decreeholder submits that service of notice is not mandatory particularly when the decreeholder has sought for execution of the decree taking police help in application of the provisions available under Rule 208 of CRO.
The attention of the Court is drawn to two decisions reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 6173 and another unreported decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in C.O.2820 of 2018. An arguable point is thus raised whether the notice is at all needed, while seeking for police help in 2 connection with a prayer for execution of a decree in aid of Rule 208 of CRO or not.
Pending decision of such issue, interim protection is thus necessary at least for a limited period of time. Let there be an order directing stay of operation of the impugned order dated 4th October, 2021, for a period of three weeks from hence. Petitioner is directed to serve copy of this application upon the opposite parties and their learned advocate appearing in the court below by Speed Post with Acknowledgement Due and furnish affidavit-of- service on the next returnable date. List the matter under the heading 'Adjourned Motion' after a fortnight.
(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)