Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
SAT-164-2013 on 7 March, 2016
1
44.
07.03.2016
mb
In the High Court At Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
S.A.T. 164 of 2013
+
C.A.N. 10590 of 2015
+
C.A.N. 5726 of 2013
With
S.A.T. 162 of 2013
+
C.A.N. 4875 of 2013
+
C.A.N. 11224 of 2013
Mr. Joydeep Kar,
Mr. B. Basu,
Mr. A. Roy,
Mr. J. Basu Roy,
Mr. S. Paul,
Mr. N. Dasgupta,
Mr. L. Som
......for the appellant-petitioner
Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee
Mr. A. Sarkar
.........for the respondent no. 1
In Re.: C.A.N. 5726 of 2013 In this application, the appellant in the second appeal has prayed for stay of all further proceedings of Ejectment Execution 2 Case No. 22 of 2015 pending before the learned 5th Judge, Presidency Small Causes Court at Kolkata.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff- respondent no. 1 submitted that the next date of hearing of the execution application is filed on April 26, 2016 and that too only for the purpose of service return.
The aforesaid submission of Mr. Mukherjee could not be disputed by Mr. Kar learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant.
Thus, at the present moment there is no scope for passing any interim order in this application.
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1 submitted that in the event the appellant- petitioner intends to obtain an order of stay of the execution proceedings, it is liable to pay occupation charges in respect of the suit property at the market rate. He prayed for an opportunity to file affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to this application.
Let the respondent no. 1 file its affidavit-in-opposition within March 14, 2016; reply thereto, if any, be filed within March 21, 2016.
Let this application together other applications appear in the list under the same heading on March 22, 2016. 3
It appears that in spite of the leave granted by this Court on March 02, 2016, the appellant-petitioner has not corrected the prayer portion of the application in consonance with the statements made in the supplementary affidavit.
Thus, as prayed for by the learned Advocate for the appellant- petitioner, once again leave is granted to the appellant-petitioner to correct the prayer portion of the application.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)