Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Shrimati Anjana Sengupta vs Jahar Maity And Others on 22 June, 2017
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
C.O. 572 of 2017 32 22.6.2017
md. Shrimati Anjana Sengupta
-Vs-
Jahar Maity and others
Mr. Debasish Roy
.. for the petitioner
Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee
.. for the opposite parties
The heirs of the deceased opposite party No.1 are represented. The petitioner obtained a decree for possession in 2005 and faced resistance from two sets of parties who applied under Order XXI Rule 97 to 101 of the Code.
The first set of such applicants lost, carried an appeal and failed. The second set of applicants lost upto the second miscellaneous appeal stage in this Court.
There was a direction by a previous order of this Court for the application for police help filed by the petitioning decree-holder to be taken up expeditiously. It appears from the order-sheet that such application was heard out by July 12, 2016 and the matter was fixed for orders on August 04, 2016. On August 04, 2016, the order-sheet records that the order was not ready and the matter was adjourned. On the next date fixed on November 05, 2016, the concerned officer was absent. When the matter appeared next on December 07, 2016, the officer who had reserved judgment, was available but the order records that the order was still not ready. The matter was then fixed for January 27, 2017.
Subsequent to December 07, 2016 and prior to January 27, 2017, the concerned Judge was transferred. The present prayer of the petitioner is for the expeditious disposal of the application for police help made in the execution proceedings.
Before the petitioner's plea can be taken up, the rank indiscipline that is evident from the order-sheet must be addressed. It is inconceivable that a judgment is not delivered more than five months after it being reserved for judgment. If it is further considered that the judgment was in respect of 2 an application for police help in execution proceedings, the omission becomes magnified.
The Registrar (Judicial) will call for an explanation from Sm. Kum Kum Chakraborty, who was the Judge presiding over the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta at the relevant point of time. The Judge will explain why disciplinary proceedings should not be recommended to be initiated against the Judge for the Judge having not delivered judgment for more than five months after reserving orders.
Let a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for considering the conduct of the Judge at a meeting of the Administrative Committee.
As to the prayer of the petitioner, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court is directed to ensure that the execution case and the application therein, being Ejectment Execution Case No.2017 of 2005 and Misc. Case No.166 of 2006, are assigned before an appropriate Bench with a request to the relevant Bench to ensure that the matter is disposed of within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order.
C.O.572 of 2017 is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)