Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sri Joyprakash Shaw @ Jai Prakash Shaw vs Sri Ram Lagan Das on 2 March, 2020

Author: Biswajit Basu

Bench: Biswajit Basu

                                                     1


02.03.2020

(M/L-50) Ct.-18 (Susanta) C.O. 628 of 2020 Sri Joyprakash Shaw @ Jai Prakash Shaw

-Vs-

                            Sri Ram Lagan Das

         Mr.    Anupam Kumar Bhattacharya,
         Mr.    Tapas Kumar Mondal,
         Mr.    Anirban Dey,
         Mr.    M. Saha.
                                ...... For the Petitioner.

         Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh.
                           ..... For the Opposite Party.


Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record. The Petitioner suffered an ex parte decree of eviction in Ejectment suit no. 37 of 2016.

The petitioner has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the said ex parte decree registered as Misc. Case no. 288 of 2018 before the 2nd Court of Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore, District 24-Parganas (South). The opposite party/decree-holder in the meantime has put the decree into execution giving rise to Ejectment Execution Case no. 10 of 2018. The petitioner in the said execution case filed an application praying stay of all further proceedings of it, pending disposal of the said Misc. Case under Order IX rule 13 of the Code.

2

The Executing Court by the order impugned has dismissed the said application on the ground that no order staying the further proceedings of the said execution case has been passed by any Superior Court. The Executing Court is competent to pass an order staying the further proceeding of the execution case pending before it if the situation of the case demands so.

However, such an order can only be passed after putting the judgment- debtor under some terms.

The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. C.O. 628 of 2020 is disposed of with a direction upon the Executing Court to dispose of the said application for stay expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)