GOBORDHAN ROY Vs. PANNALAL SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application is directed against an Order No. 100 dated 22-8-92 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 50 of 1990. The said Misc. Case is in respect of an, objection taken by the Judgment-debtor in a proceedings under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The connected litigation has a chequered career. It appears from the perusal of the plaint of the connected suit being Title Suit No. 361 of 1993 that a previous suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 337 of 1966 was decreed long time back on contest against which an appeal was preferred and thereafter a controversy was set at rest as the decreeholder was delivered possession of the property. Being emboldened by the prevalent situation of unrest prevailing in the area, the defendant was alleged to have trespassed into the land and property in question including that which was covered by a decree of eviction. The plaintiff thus found no other alternative but to rush to the Civil Court for recovery of possession of the suit premises, and the plaintiff was favoured with a grant of a decree in connected suit. The matter went up to this Court in second appeal and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff was sustained. Thereafter another suit was alleged to have been filed by the defendant who is the judgment-debtor in the connected suit challenging the said decree as inoperative and invalid and abortive attempt was made to obtain order of injunction. Thereafter the same was said not to have been pressed and the judgment-debtor fell back upon the connected proceedings under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The pith and substance of objection taken in Section 47 was to the effect that the right title and interest of the superior landlord was purchased by the defendant as early as in 1973. The said question was gone into even at the stage of second appeal and the point was negatived.

(3.) The revisionist here in the connected Misc. Case filed an application for stay of execution and the Executing Court directed the judgment-debtor petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,000.00 in Court within seven days from the date of the order and on compliance of the said condition it was directed that the execution would remain stayed till the disposal of the Misc. Case. It apparently, appears that the backdrop of the scenario of such a long and arduous litigation and after taking note of the conduct of the parties, the Executing Court saddled the judgment-debtor with liberty to pay costs as aforesaid. The revisionist against the said order moved up in revision under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in C. R. 189 of 1990 by which the said petition under Section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected as on 31/05/1991 as the learned Judge did not find any merit in the case. From the said order it does not appear that any prayer was made before the self-same court for extension of time to deposit the costs which could not have been deposited in view of the pendency of the revisional proceedings.