JATINDRANATH NASKAR Vs. BAHARADDI MOLLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule arises out of proceedings under Section 37A (8), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The judgment -debtors obtained an award and order for restoration and applied to the Munsif, 1st Court, Baruipur, under the provisions of that sub -section. Objection was made by the present petitioners (who were opposite parties Nos. 15 and 16 in that petition) on the basis of a lease from the landlord. It is unnecessary for me to give details of the nature of the objection. The objection was overruled. The objectors were not parties to the proceedings under the Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, a position which is quite in accordance with the decision in Taraprasanna Roy v. Adwaita Charan, A. I. R. (35) 1948 Cal. 329 and subsequent decisions.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioners, my attention has been called to the case of Narayan Chandra v. Rash Behari, Civil Revn. C. N. 1721 of 1946 : (I. L. R. (1948) 2 Cal. 68) in which it was held by Mukherjea and Ormond JJ. that where the judgment -debtor was obstructed in endeavouring to get possession through Court under Section 37A (8) he could make an application under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil P. C. The Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act itself provides no procedure for the Court to follow in a proceeding under Section 37A (8) of that Act which has many affinities with a proceeding under Section 144, Civil P. C. The case cited amounts to a decision that the proper procedure for a Court to follow is the procedure of the Code in regard to execution of decrees.

(3.) ON behalf of the opposite parties, it is in turn objected that the petitioners ought not now to be allowed to change their ground.