Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in The Card Board Materials & Printing Co. ... vs Everlasting Procon Private Limited & ... on 22 November, 2017Matching Fragments
CAN No.4608 of 2017 in S.M.A.T.No.7 of 2017 The Card Board Materials & Printing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
-vs-
Everlasting Procon Private Limited & Ors.
Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya Mr. Tarak Nath Halder ...for the applicant Mr. Ashoke Banerjee Mr. Arindam Banerjee Mr. Asish Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Arpita Saha ...for the opposite party no.16 CAN No.4608 of 2017 has been filed by the appellant in the appeal for stay of all further proceedings in Ejectment Execution Case No.6 of 2016 pending in the learned Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sealdah.
Said decree has been put into execution by filing Ejectment Execution Case No.6 of 2016. Mr Roy Chowdhury submitted that his client was all along in possession in the subject property since 1936 and was not a party in that eviction suit and therefore his client having a valid right filed the misc. case being Misc. Case No.6 of 2016 within the relevant provisions under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In that misc. case the opposite party filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code proposing rejection of plaint/petition of the misc. case on the grounds as mentioned therein and upon hearing learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sealdah on July 22, 2016 allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with section 151 CPC filed by the opposite parties rejecting the plaint/petition i.e. the misc. case filed under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 101, 103 and 104 read with section 151 of the Code. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred Misc. Appeal No.66 of 2016 before learned lower appellate court at Sealdah since it was a deemed decree and the learned appellate court also dismissed the appeal upholding the order of learned trial court.
The petitioner being the appellant thereby preferred the second appeal before this court which was admitted by the Division Bench recording order dated July 10, 1017 framing two points of law.
Mr Roy Chowdhury submitted that when the second appeal has been admitted by framing the points of law for adjudication of the appeal and since Misc. Case No.6 of 2016 filed by his client in the ejectment execution case was not decided on merit and since decree passed in Ejectment Case No.6 of 2014 was not binding upon his client as because his client was not made party therein although since long his client was in possession and still has been continuing possession, if the operation of the decree be not stayed, his client would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Further pointed out that the right as has been alleged by filing the misc. case in the execution proceeding is to be determined and without its determination the execution proceeding should not be allowed to be proceeded with although there is the provision of restoration of possession within the ambit of section 144 CPC.