Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
2998/2011 on 8 September, 2011
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
08.09.2011 C.O. No. 2998 of 2011
s.d. Mr. Asit Baran Raut,
Mr. Asit Kr. Chowdhury,
Ms. Kakali Biswas,
Mr. Tuhin Subhra Raut ..... for the petitioner. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.
This application has been preferred for expeditious disposal of the two misc. case numbers, namely, Misc. Case No.4099 of 2009 and No.4485 of 2009 arising out of the Execution Case No.2 of 2009.
The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner got a decree for recovery of possession against the opposite party no.2 in the Ejectment Suit No.170 of 1995 on compromise; but the judgment debtor / opposite party no.2 herein did not vacate the premises in suit in spite of such compromise decree within the time stipulated in the decree. The petitioner has to file an application for police help and that application has been converted into the Misc. Case No.4099 of 2009.
On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 of the C.P.C. contending that it is a bona fide tenant in respect of the Schedule 'A' property and that application has been converted into the Misc. Case No.4485 of 2009. As per order of this Hon'ble Court in a civil revision, both the matters are being heard analogously. Subsequently, the matter came to this Hon'ble Court again against the disposal of an application for stay preferred by the opposite party and by an order dated April 28, 2011, this Bench supported the order of rejection of the application for stay filed by the opposite party. Thereafter, the two misc. cases proceeded, the evidence of both the sides was closed and the matters were fixed for argument. At that stage, the opposite party no.1 filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. That application was kept pending. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 filed another application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. during the pendency of hearing of the argument. Those two applications have not been disposed of. Thus, the execution case is being delayed. So, this application has been preferred by the decree-holder for expeditious disposal of the matters.
Upon hearing Mr. Asit Baran Raut appearing for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the two applications under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. have been filed in the misc. cases at the time of argument. In spite of that, the parties proceeded with the hearing of the argument at first. Subsequently, when the judgment debtor / opposite party no.1 pointed out, the learned Trial Judge fixed the date of hearing of the applications under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. I am told that the hearing of argument on behalf of the judgment debtor / opposite party no.1 has been closed yesterday afternoon.
Upon perusal of the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge, since after the date of order passed by this Bench, I do not find any material irregularity in the orders, save and except, as noted above. When the application Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is filed during the argument, it has to be disposed of first. Then the hearing may be taken up.
Mr. Raut appearing on behalf of the decree-holder submits that if the matter is proceeded in this fashion, the object of granting time to dispose of the two misc. cases within two months from the date of communication as passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalidas Mukherjee in C.O. No.2339 of 2009 becomes infractuous. With due respect to Mr. Routh, I hold that this submission cannot be accepted because of the changed circumstances that a matter under Section 26(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 came up for hearing during the pendency of the two misc. cases in the mean time and that is why this Bench passed the orders as referred to above. Under the circumstances, there was some delay in spite of order of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalidas Mukherjee.
Therefore, I am of the view that there is no material irregularity in the impugned orders which calls for interference by this Bench.
Now, it is the turn on his behalf of the decree-holder for making submission over the application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. I am told that the hearing on his behalf of the judgment debtor has been closed yesterday afternoon. So, it is the turn on his behalf of the decree-holder to make the submission over the said two applications. It is expected that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the two applications as early as possible.
Therefore, this revisional application is disposed of with such observations.
Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Prasenjit Mandal. J.)