Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

For the opposite parties: Mr. S.P. Roy Chowdhury, Mr. A.B. Rout, Mr. D. Sharma.

Heard On: 20.04.2011.

Judgement On: April 28, 2011.

Prasenjit Mandal, J.: This application is at the instance of the resister and is directed against the Order No.23 dated January 16, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, 8th Bench in Misc. Case No.4485 of 2009 arising out of Ejectment Execution No.2 of 2009 thereby rejecting the applications under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Court (henceforth shall be referred as 'C.P.C.') for stay of the two misc. cases.

x) On March 30, 2009, the Ejectment Execution Case No.2 of 2009 was filed by the decree-holder for execution of the decree and the writ of possession was issued.

xi) On May 20, 2009, the bailiff filed a report of obstruction and the fact that the delivery of possession could not be given.

xii) On May 21, 2009, the Misc. Case No.4099 of 2009 arising out of the said ejectment case was filed by the decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. for grant of police help.

Just indicated earlier I also refrain from discussing whether the R.C. Case No.150 of 2009 is maintainable because it is to be decided by the concerned authority.

What I find from the above observations is that the petitioner was not a party to the Ejectment Suit No.170 of 1995. For that reason, the execution of the decree has been resisted by the petitioner. It has filed the application under Order 21 Rule 101 of the C.P.C. to determine its status with regard to the premises in the execution proceeding. The learned Executing Court has closed the evidence and fixed the next date on January 30, 2010 for hearing argument on that misc. case also. So, the fate of the petitioner with regard to the premises in the execution case shall be decided. The petitioner is within its right to place its contention under Order 21 Rule 101 of the C.P.C. and it has exercised its right. This is an independent proceeding with regard to the steps under Section 26(2) of the 1997 Act. The learned Executing Court is within his competence to dispose of the same independently irrespective of the recourse adopted by the petitioner. There is a direction of the Hon'ble Court to dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order passed in the said civil revision. So, I do not find any illegality committed by the learned Executing Court in passing the impugned order.