LAWS(CAL)-2012-11-3

SIRAJUDDIN MOLLA Vs. EBADAR RAHMAN MOLLA

Decided On November 20, 2012
Sirajuddin Molla Appellant
V/S
Ebadar Rahman Molla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the judgment and order dated March 15, 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1 st Court, Alipore in Civil Revision Case No.16 of 2007 thereby setting aside the Order No.178 dated March 16, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3 rd Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No.34 of 1986 arising out of Misc. Execution Case No.1 of 1984.

(2.) The facts as narrated in the application may be etymologized as follows: The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. in an execution proceeding arising out of an order of pre-emption on an application under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The order of pre-emption having been affirmed by the Appellate Court and the Hon'ble High Court in revision, the pre-emptor / opposite party herein lodged the said Execution Case being Misc. Execution Case No.1 of 1984. In that execution case, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. being Misc. Case No.34 of 1986 contending that he had constructed a hut on the land in case and that he had been residing thereon along with the members of his family. The property is now situated within the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

(3.) The Executing Court held that the order of pre-emption was invalid and inexecutable. So, the execution case should be dismissed. The Misc. Case being No.34 of 1986 was allowed on contests and in consequence, the execution case being Misc. Execution Case No.1 of 1984 was dismissed without costs. Being aggrieved, the pre-emptor filed a revision being Civil Revision No.16 of 2007 which was allowed on contests and the judgment and order dated March 16, 2002 passed by the learned Executing Court in Misc. Case No.34 of 1986 was set aside and the misc. execution case was restored. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the judgment debtors / petitioners herein.