Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Paramananda Jena vs Kartick Ojha on 7 June, 2017
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
1 01. 07.06.2017
mb In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side C.O. 1820 of 2017 Paramananda Jena
-Vs.-
Kartick Ojha Mr. Goutam Chakraborty ......for the petitioner This revisional application, at the instance of the judgment-debtor in the eviction suit, is directed against the order dated May 18, 2017 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Execution Case No. 115 of 2013, arising out of Ejectment Suit No. 301 of 2009. By the impugned order, the learned Court below rejected the application of the petitioner praying for stay of the execution proceeding and issued the writ of possession through the court bailiff for execution of the eviction decree against the petitioner.
Against the eviction decree passed by both the learned trial Judge and the learned first appellate Court, the petitioner preferred the second appeal before this Court, which was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court on September 13, 2016. In the second appeal, the petitioner filed an application, C.A.N. 7147 of 2015 praying for stay of all further proceedings in the execution case. By order dated September 13, 2016 the 2 Division Bench of this Court disposed of the stay application directing the petitioner to deposit all arrear occupation charges of the suit premises upto the month of October, 2016 in the Executing Court within November 15, 2016 and also to deposit current occupation charges of the suit premises commencing from November, 2016 till the disposal of the appeal at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month in the Executing Court within the 7th day of each following month. By the said order, the Division Bench made it clear that in default of compliance of any of the said conditions, for any single occasion or for any single month, the interim order of stay of the execution proceeding will stand automatically vacated and, in that event, the learned Executing Court will be free to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law.
The petitioner deposited the arrear occupation charges in the learned Executing Court within November 15, 2016. But the learned Court below found the petitioner to have defaulted in depositing the monthly occupation charges of the suit premises of Rs.2000/- for the month of November, 2016 onwards and on this ground the learned Court below passed the impugned order.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, made his detailed submission in support of the present revisional application. He, however, could not dispute that the earlier order dated May 18, 2017 passed by the learned Court below in the execution proceeding rejecting the petitioner's prayer to direct the concerned department to accept delayed deposit of the occupation charges for the month of November, 2016 has not been assailed before this Court by filing any revisional application. At this stage, when Mr. Chakraborty realised that this Court is not inclined to entertain the relief claimed by the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the learned 3 Court below, he prayed for leave to withdraw the revisional application.
In view of the above submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the revisional application, C.O. 1820 of 2017, stands dismissed as withdrawn.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the petitioner upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)