DHANANJOY MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners look out this writ petition alleging that police authorities were not giving necessary help for fencing their own land. They have alleged that the seventh to tenth respondents were causing obstruction, and hence they needed police help.

(2.) The seventh to tenth respondents have filed an opposition. Their Counsel submits that in the name of fencing the petitioners actually wanted to encroach upon land owned and possessed by his clients. He further submits that a second appeal presented by his clients before this Court is awaiting admission. His contention is that since by filing this writ petition the petitioners sought to execute a decree of a civil Court granting permanent injunction, in view of provisions in Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, their remedy, if any, is only by way of execution of the decree before the competent civil Court. In support of his contention he relies on a single bench decision of this Court in Jayanta Kumar Banerjee v. UCO Bank & Ors., (2004)3 Cal HN 380 : (2004)2 WBLR (Cal) 113.

(3.) The petitioners filed a title suit No. 205 of 1980 in the fifth Court of the Munsif, Howrah. The seventh to tenth respondents were defendants in that suit. The petitioners prayed for declaration of their title and permanent injunction. On contest that suit was decreed on May 31 st, 1991. The petitioners' absolute right, title and interest in the suit land (mentioned in the schedule to the plaint) were declared. A decree was made for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from entering into the suit land and also from disturbing the petitioners' peaceful possession thereof, First appeal preferred by the seventh to tenth respondents was dismissed by judgment and order dated July 20th, 1995, After presenting the second appeal they did not take any steps for its admission hearing.