KAUSHIK GHOSE Vs. REBA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision No. C.O. No. 660 of 2013 arose out of order No. 52 dated 15.9.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Bench of the Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 216/2007 arising out of Ejectment Execution Case No. 58/2007. The short background is that the predecessors in interest of the petitioner viz. Renuka Ghosh, since deceased had obtained an ex parte decree of eviction from the learned 3rd Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta on 6.11.2006 passed in Ejectment Suit No. 165/04. The petitioner states that the said Renuka Ghosh during her lifetime had put the said decree into execution before the learned Executing Court and the same was registered as Ejectment Execution Case No. 58/07. Being registered, Renuka Ghosh during her lifetime filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Executing Court praying for police help to execute the said decree. The application was registered as Misc. Case No. 216/07. The application was duly contested by one third party/resistant or objector viz. Jyotsna Das wherein she filed written objection denying and disputing the material allegations. During pendency of the Misc. Case No. 216/07 the said Jyotsna Das filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for adjudication of right. That application was registered as Misc. Case No. 102/08. It was duly contested by Renuka Ghosh during her lifetime denying all material allegations. During pendency of the said two cases the decree-holder died intestate on 8.9.11. Subsequent to the said demise as per the trust deed dated 10.7.72, the rear portion of the building wherein the suit premises is situated devolved upon the estate of the deceased Paresh Chandra Ghosh. Paresh Chandra Ghosh during his lifetime had executed his last Will and testament on 31.12.2005 bequeathing the said property in favour of the petitioner. Paresh Chandra Ghosh pre-deceased the decree-holder. As per the said Will, the petitioner being the sole beneficiary of the estate is to be substituted in place and state of late Renuka Ghosh.

(2.) Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Misc. Case No. 216/07. Due to some lacuna in the application the same was withdrawn and a fresh application dated 17.3.12 was filed praying for substitution in place of decree-holder. The objector duly contested the application verbally before the learned Court below disputing all material allegations. On 15.9.12 learned Executing Court on hearing of both the sides rejected the application filed by the petitioner by Order No. 52.

(3.) Now, the point for consideration is if the impugned order calls for any interference or not.