LAWS(CAL)-2007-10-53

SANKAR PARUI Vs. SANDHYA MONDAL

Decided On October 11, 2007
SANKAR PARUI Appellant
V/S
SANDHYA MONDAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the decree holders and is directed against the order dated 17. 02. 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, howrah in Title Execution Case No. 2 of 2004 arising out of the composite judgment and decree dated December 9,2003 in Title Suit No. 92 of 1998 and title Suit No. 84 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the said order, the decree-holders/petitioners have preferred this revisional application.

(2.) THE fact leading to the filing of the revisional application in short is that the decree-holders/petitioners filed the Title Suit No. 92 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Howrah for ejectment and recovery of khas possession of the premises in suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 contested the said suit and they also filed the Title Suit No. 84 of 2000 for declaration and injunction over the selfsame property. The two suits were heard analogously by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, howrah and by a composite judgment and decree dated December 9, 2003 the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) decreed the Title Suit No. 92 of 1998 and he directed the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the premises in suit within a period of three months from the date of judgment. Thereafter the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the learned District judge, Howrah bearing Title Appeal No. 13 of 2006. They also filed a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the composite judgment and decree dated December 9, 2003. They also filed another revisional application before the High Court at Calcutta against the order of rejection of their prayer for stay of the operation of the composite judgment and decree. Both the revisional applications were heard by the hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and those were dismissed. Thereafter the appellate Court also dismissed the title appeal filed by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. They also filed another second appeal before the Hon'ble high Court at Calcutta but no stay order as yet has been obtained. So the decree-holders/petitioners have prayed for expeditious disposal of the execution case filed by them but the executing Court is granting time to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 without any order from the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. So they have prayed for expeditious disposal of the execution case filed by them.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that the facts are rather admitted. There is no dispute that the decree-holders/petitioners filed the title Suit No. 92 of 1998 against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and that the suit had been decreed against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. At present, it is not in dispute that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed an appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 13 of 2006 against the decree-holders/petitioners and that appeal had been disposed of confirming the composite judgment and decree dated December 9, 2003. It is not in dispute that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 preferred two revisional applications before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta - one against the composite judgment and decree dated December 9, 2003 and another against the order of rejection of the prayer of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 for stay of the operation of the judgment and decree dated december 9, 2003. It is also not in dispute that both the revisional applications were heard analogously by the Hlon'ble High Court at Calcutta by a common judgment and that the same were dismissed. Admittedly, the decree-holders/petitioners filed the Execution Case No. 2 of 2004 for execution of the decree.