Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Harish Chandra Prasad vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 August, 2018
Author: Arijit Banerjee
Bench: Arijit Banerjee
1
24.08.2018
Court No. 1
Item No. 10
pk.
AST No. 94 of 2017
With
CAN No. 4913 of 2017
With
CAN No. 6054 of 2018
Harish Chandra Prasad
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Satyajit Mondal,
Mr. Amar Nath Sen,
Mr. Somnath Moitra
For the appellant/petitioner
Mr. Ramesh Chandra Paul
For the respondent no. 5
Mr. Gaus Ul Alam, Ms. Munmun Tewary For the State The appellant/petitioner claims to be in possession of one room in a property at Chitpur, Calcutta, as a tenant. The respondent no. 5 claiming to be thika tenant in respect of the said room and on the basis that the appellant herein was a bharatia under him, filed a suit for eviction against the appellant. The suit was decreed in 2008. The appellant approached this Court earlier by way of C.O . No. 2016 of 2016 claiming an interest in the property in question. By an order dated 1st July, 2016 the appellant was granted liberty to approach the Executing Court with an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner availed of such leave and filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court. Such application was dismissed. The revisional application preferred against such order of dismissal was also dismissed.
2Thereafter, the petitioner claims to have sought for certain information from the Thika Controller. Alleging non-supply of such information by the Thika Controller, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.No. 16092(W) of 2016. By an order dated 16th August, 2016, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue his appellate remedies under the Right To Information Act. This order is impugned before us in the present appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the firm opinion that the appellant/petitioner has resorted to diverse dilatory tactics only to frustrate execution of the decree of the civil court, which was passed against him way back in 2008. There was absolutely no legitimate ground for the appellant to file the writ petition on which the impugned order was passed. The learned Single Judge rightly rejected the writ application. The conduct of the appellant has been far from bona fide. This kind of practice must be deprecated in the strongest term.
The Executing Court shall execute the eviction decree in question as expeditiously as possible. The police authorities are directed to extend all necessary assistance to the respondent No.5 (plaintiff in the eviction suit) for executing the decree in question.
The appellant herein shall pay costs of this appeal to the respondent No.5 assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) in view of the devious practice adopted by him in an effort to frustrate the civil court's decree. However, in the event, the appellant delivers peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent No. 5 herein by 27th August, 2018, the costs awarded against the appellant shall stand waived.
The appeal and the stay application being CAN 4913 of 2017 and the application for extension of interim order being CAN 6054 of 2018 are all accordingly disposed of.
( Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Chief Justice) (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 3