Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Purnima Kunda And Another vs Beleghata Nabamilan Club on 7 September, 2018
1 S/l. 07.09.
39. Bpg 2018 In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction C.O. No.3054 of 2018 Purnima Kunda and another Versus Beleghata Nabamilan Club Mr. Rabi Shankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Suman Shankar Chattopadhyay, Mr. Soumen Banerjee.
...for the petitioners.
The decree-holders in an eviction suit have preferred the instant revisional application against a direction by the appellate court on the judgment- debtor/opposite party to deposit security of Rs.50,000/- for the grant of stay.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount directed was meagre and, instead of security, occupation charges ought to have been directed by the appellate court.
It appears from the impugned order that the appellate court adopted an erroneous legal view in 2 holding that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable to the case. However, ultimately the appellate court, by the impugned order, granted security of Rs.50,000/- to "compensate lost occasioned by delay in execution of decree which was to be suffered" by the decree- holders/petitioners. As such, although on erroneous reasoning, the appellate court's conclusion was justified and, in the garb of 'security', what was granted was in reality occupation charges, although in lump sum form. Since such exercise of judicial discretion was sound in conclusion, though faulty any reasoning, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, C.O.3054 of 2018 is dismissed, without, however, any order as to costs.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )