SUNIL KUMAR BHOWMIK Vs. ALOK BHOWMIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Saswati Nag, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborti, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the execution case being Ex(T) 06 of 2017 was filed by the plaintiff for execution of the decree dtd. 2/12/2009 passed in T.S. 03 of 2008. It is submitted that an objection under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 6/1/2025 by the judgment debtor/petitioner herein. However, by the impugned order dtd. 8/1/2025, the learned Executing Court had issued directions upon the judgment debtor/petitioner to remove all obstructions from the suit land and file an affidavit to that effect. The learned Court has also gone further to issue directions upon the Senior Manager, Electrical Sub-Division, Belonia to disconnect the electricity lines to the premises of the petitioner. The learned Court has, in the meanwhile, observed that as per the survey report, the judgment debtor has not only caused obstruction to the bailiff, but also created permanent structures over the decreetal land and in that way caused resistance to the execution of the decree. He further submits that without disposing of the application under Sec. 47 of the CPC, the learned Executing Court has gone on to issue directions to remove all permanent constructions from the land in question which is wholly without jurisdiction. The direction upon the Electricity Department is also beyond the scope of the execution case. Therefore, petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to para 7 of the instant revision petition whereby it has been stated that the petitioner had filed a petition under Sec. 47 of the Code that on the suit land besides him, his members of the family are also in possession, but they were not made party in the suit. But the said objection petition was not disposed of by the learned Trial Court who proceeded with the execution proceedings. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that the said objection petition could not be found out and therefore is not enclosed.