Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
@ Ramendra Nath Ghosh vs Dipak Das And Ors on 27 September, 2019
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:
Hon'ble Justice Manojit Mandal.
C.O. No. 2299 of 2019 Ranendra Nath Ghosh @ Ranendranath Ghosh @ Ramendra Nath Ghosh Vs. Dipak Das and ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Koustav Bagchi, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Chayan Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Rittick Chowdhury, Advocate
Heard on : 24.09.2019
Judgment on : 27.09.2019
2
Manojit Mandal, J.:-
This application is at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff and is directed against the order dated June 15, 2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, at Barrackpore in Title Appeal No. 44 of 2017 regarding Execution Case No. 11 of 2017 arising out of Ejectment Suit No.159 of 2004 (Dipak Das & Ors. V. Ramendranath Ghosh) whereby the learned Additional District Judge was pleased to reassess the occupational charges at the rate of Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) per month.
2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an Ejectment Suit bearing No. 159 of 2004 against Netai Chandra Das (since deceased) for eviction in respect of two rooms and a kitchen beneath the stair-case with bath and privy in the ground floor in the premises no. 1, A.C. Sarkar Road, Dakshineswar, Police Station - Belgharia, District- North 24 Parganas, Kolkata-700 076, on the ground of reasonable requirement. Netai Chandra Das (since deceased) entered appearance in the said suit and thereafter contested the same by filing written statement.
3. On 31.05.2007 the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Sealdah, was pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff directing the then defendant in the suit to hand over vacant khas possession to the petitioner/plaintiff. After the death of Shri Netai Chandra Das, the opposite parties/appellants/defendants were 3 substituted as his legal heirs and they preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 23 of 2007 before the Court of Additional District Judge at Barrackpore and subsequently, the said appeal was transferred to the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal (hereinafter called and referred to as the WBLRTT) by an order dated March13, 2008. The petitioner/plaintiff preferred Title Execution Case being No. 25 of 2007 for the execution of the judgment and decree passed in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 159 of 2004. The WBLRTT had admitted the said appeal and was pleased to pass an interim order restraining the petitioner/plaintiff from proceeding in respect of the said Title Execution Suit No. 25 of 2007. Thereafter, petitioner/plaintiff had challenged the said interim order passed by the WBLRTT by way of an application before this Court and the same was numbered as WPLRT 164 of 2008. The said application was disposed of by directing the WBLRTT to expedite the hearing of the appeal. Subsequently, the said appeal was transferred back to the Court of learned Additional District Judge at Barrackpore, by WBLRTT and the appeal was renumbered as Title Appeal No. 44 of 2011. The learned Additional District Judge, Barrackpore, was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree passed in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 159 of 2004 and the suit was remanded back to the learned Trial Court and directed to rewrite the judgment afresh. Subsequently, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah was pleased to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter, petitioner/plaintiff preferred an Execution Case being No. 11 of 2017. The opposite parties/appellants/defendants had preferred an 4 appeal being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree. The opposite parties/appellants/defendants had also preferred an application for a stay of all further proceedings of the said execution case till the disposal of the Title Appeal bearing No. 44 of 2017. On 17th January, 2019 the learned Court was pleased to stay the Execution Case being No. 11 of 2017 arising out of Ejectment Suit bearing No. 159 of 2004 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Sealdah. Learned Trial Court was also pleased to direct the opposite parties/appellants/defendants to pay Rs. 7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) per month as occupation charges to the petitioner/plaintiff by the 10th day of the month. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the opposite parties/appellants/defendants had preferred one revisional application before this Court and the said application was numbered as C.O. 790 of 2019. After hearing, our High Court was pleased to dispose of the said revisional application by setting aside the impugned order and directed the Appellate Court to reassess the occupational charges. In compliance with the said order passed by our High Court, in connection with C.O. No. 790 of 2019, the learned Appellate Court had heard the matter afresh with regard to occupational charges and reassessed the occupational charges as Rs.750/-(Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) per month by the order impugned. So, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this application.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the opposite parties and on perusal of the materials available on record and the impugned order, I find that WBLRTT admitted 5 the appeal bearing no. 23 of 2007 and was pleased to pass an interim order restraining the petitioner/plaintiff from proceeding in respect of the Title Execution Case No. 25 of 2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, passed by the WBLRTT, the petitioner/plaintiff had challenged the same by filing an application before our High Court and the same was numbered as WPLRT 164 of 2008. Our High Court observed in connection with said WPLRT case No. 164 of 2008 that the amount of Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) was justified as occupational charges to be paid by the defendant/judgment debtor in respect of the property in dispute. It is found that the said order passed by our High Court in connection with WPLRT 164 of 2008 have not been challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff before any higher forum and, therefore, the said order is still in force and valid. It is well-settled position of law that till an order passed by a competent court is set aside and/or stayed and/or varied and/or modified, the said order remains valid and subsisting and is required to be complied with, both in law and in spirit. In the premises noted above, I do not accept the contentions of the petitioner that the learned Lower Court has passed the impugned order, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.
5. I, therefore, do not find that the determination is perverse and de hors to the materials on record and have been arrived on extraneous consideration.
6. I also do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. 6
7. The revisional application is thus, dismissed.
8. The Court of Appeal below is requested to make efforts to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and preferably within two months from the date of communication of a copy of this order.
9. There will be no order as to costs.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Manojit Mandal, J.)