Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Basudeb Nandi vs Digbijoy Sinha on 6 July, 2017
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8701 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28614 of 2016)
BASUDEB NANDI & ANR. ... Appellants
VERSUS
DIGBIJOY SINHA & ANR. ... Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties finally at this stage itself.
The appellants are the decree holders who obtained decree of eviction against the respondents herein. The first appeal filed by the respondents against the said decree was dismissed. The respondents filed Regular Second Appeal which is pending before the High Court, however, no stay was granted in the same. In these circumstances, the appellants filed execution petition seeking execution of the aforesaid decree in their favour in which warrants of possession were issued and the appellants even got the possession. However, belatedly, application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) raising objections to the execution of the Signature Not Verifieddecree was filed. The High Court has itself admitted that Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2017.07.17 09:52:20 IST Reason: there was not only abnormal delay in filing the application but, after filing the said application, the respondents / 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8701 OF 2017 judgment debtors were only seeking adjournments with the purpose of frustrating the fruits of the decree to the decree holders and therefore, no leniency could be shown. The High Court dismissed the said application. However, on filing of the application for restoration, the High Court restored the application under Section 47 of the CPC.
We are of the opinion that in a case like this, more particularly when possession was given to the decree holders, there was no reason to restore the application under Section 47 CPC at that stage.
We, thus, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and allow this appeal. Needless to mention, this would be without prejudice to the contention of the parties taken in the Regular Second Appeal pending before the High Court, which shall be decided on its own merits.
.........................., J.
[ A.K. SIKRI ] .........................., J.
[ ASHOK BHUSHAN ] New Delhi;
July 06, 2017.
2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8701 OF 2017 ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28614/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-05-2016 in CO No. 4072/2015 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) BASUDEB NANDI & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS DIGBIJOY SINHA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 06-07-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 3