NAND KISHORE JALAN Vs. CHANDRA MOHINI KHULLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order passed by the Assistant District Judge, Alipore in Title Execution Case No. 8 of 1994 dated 23rd February, 1995 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to execute the order passed by this Court in matter No. 405 of 1994.

(2.) In this revision, the petitioners who claimed to be the trustees of one charitable trust estate namely New Road Nyas had let down the first floor of the premises for a period of 21 years to the respondent/opposite party. Notwithstanding, the expiry of the lease when the opposite party did not evince any interest to vacate the lease hold premises. The petitioners filed a suit for eviction against her. The suit was decreed on 25th March, 1994; the respondent/opposite party filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore in T.A. No. 150 of 1994, inter alia, applied for stay of execution of decree. The appellate Court was however, inclined to grant conditional stay that opposite party on furnishing security to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- further execution proceeding shall remain stayed.

(3.) The revision-petitioners thereafter, moved Calcutta Municipal Corporation for demolition of the said building since it is more than 200 years old. But however, it is stated that the respondent in collusion of the official of the Corporation stalled the move for demolition. As a result the petitioners had approached this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court by a single Bench decision passed an order permitting the petitioners to repair the said building on the strength of the plan purported to have been passed by the City Architect. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Bench, the opposite party has moved an appeal before the Division Bench and the Division Bench by an order dated 23rd February, 1994 directed the parties to maintain the order of status quo. It is stated that the respondent/opposite party taking advantage of the interlocutory order had permitted few others persons into the building with a view to stultify the decree passed in the eviction suit. Therefore, the petitioners filed a contempt application against the opposite party and her associates in matter No. 405 of 1995. This Court by a Division Bench passed orders on 30th March, 1994 and 31st March, 1994 permitting a few more persons to ingress and egress to the lease hold premises. The persons those who were permitted could not claim any equity for such occupation nor it would create any right in their favour. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the opposite party in flagrant disobedience of the orders passed by the Division Bench had allowed ingress and egress into the building of some persons other than those who have been permitted by the Division Bench. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application for executing the Division Bench Order dated 30.3.94 and 31.3.94. On filing those the application, the learned Registrar, Original Side had however, referred to the executing Court before whom the suit was filed for disposal in accordance with law. The executing Court after the proceeding being transmitted to it recorded the impugned order by which he was not inclined to send notice to the respondent opposite party.