AJIT KUMAR RAY Vs. JNANENDRA NATH DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application has been filed by one Mrs. Ajit Kumar Roy, the alleged resister, in execution case of a decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises against the order dated 20-4-74 passed by the 9th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Miscellaneous Case No. 553 of 1972 allowing a prayer for police help at the time of delivery of possession by the court's bailiff as prayed for by the decree-holders Jnanedra Nath Dey and others, the opposite parties before this Court.

(2.) The relevant facts to be stated in brief are simple. The decree-holder-petitioners obtained a decree for eviction against the judgment debtor Ajit Kumar Roy in respect of the Suit No. 8 at premises No. 79/28, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. The decree in question was put in execution. According to the allegation of the decree-holders, on 22-6-72 the bailiff of the court accompanied by one of the decree-holders, Amal Kumar Dey, went to the suit premises for effecting delivery of possession. One lady representing herself to be the wife of the judgment-debtor stated that the judgment-debtor was absent and on hearing the contents of the writ for delivery of possession refused to comply with the direction in the writ and offered resistance and obstructed the bailiff in the matter of delivery of possession. It is alleged that the bailiff apprehending breach of peace had to come back without executing the decree. Thereafter, an application was filed in court by the decree-holders under Order 21, Rules 35, 97 and 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was stated in the petition further that Mrs. Ajit Kumar Roy had no right to offer resistance to the bailiff in executing the writ for delivery of possession and that it was very much necessary to pass an order for police help at the time of execution of the writ for delivery of possession. In that application Mrs. Ajit Kumar Roy was made the opposite party. A notice was served upon Mrs. Roy after the application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 553 of 1972. Mrs. Roy appeared and ultimately filed objection. On the date when the matter came up for ultimate hearing there was a prayer for adjournment from the side of Mrs. Roy and it was refused. The matter was, therefore, heard ex parte. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court on perusal of the petition supported by affidavit found that the decree-holders obtained a decree against the judgment-debtor Mr. Ajit Kumar Roy in respect of the Suit No. 8 as already stated and that on 22-6-72 when the court's bailiff went to take delivery of possession in execution of the decree the said judgment-debtor, Mr. Roy refused to deliver vacant possession and resisted the bailiff so that he could not enter into the suit premises for giving delivery of possession. The learned Judge accepted the allegations about resistance made in the petition on the ground that the judgment-debtor did not adduce any evidence to deny resistance. Ultimately, the learned Judge allowed the application and passed orders for police help for the delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises. Against this order the instant revisional application has been filed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Roy Chowdhury the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bagchi for the decree-holders-opposite parties.