Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Zubaida Hamid vs Sunil Shaw on 5 June, 2023Matching Fragments
On the North : By common passage;
On the South : By the Tannery of Asha Ram & Dhanu Ram."
The tenancy as per the plaint was in respect of one tiled roof structure and tannery.
Challenging the aforementioned decree, the defendants/judgment-debtors preferred an appeal being Ejectment Appeal No.78 of 2016.
The opposite party, alleging that the decree- holders were attempting to execute the decree against Premises No.168A, Tiljala Road, Kolkata-700046, filed an application under Order XXI Rules 98 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in Ejectment Execution Case No.10 of 2016 arising out of Ejectment Suit No.39 of 2005. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No.81 of 2019.
The opposite party prayed that the men and agents of Zubaida Hamid should be restrained from disturbing the business of the opposite party and should further be restrained from ousting the opposite party and his business from the premises No.168A, Tiljala Road by wrongly executing the decree in respect of premises No. B/168/A/H/1, Tiljala Road.
The opposite party also filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for stay of all further proceeding in Ejectment Execution Case No.10 of 2016 arising out of Ejectment Suit No.39 of 2005. According to the opposite party, Premises No.168A, Tiljala Road was a thika property and the decree was passed as the court was misled by Zubaida Hamid. It is also submitted that by an order dated July 6, 2022 Zubaida Hamid was restrained from dispossessing the petitioner.