CHANDUALAL BAGREE Vs. DAUDAYAL KOTHARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.S. Tiwari, learned Advocate, being assisted by Mr. V.K. Tiwari, learned Advocate representing the petitioner/judgment debtor. Heard also Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate, being assisted by Ms. Swati Sharma, learned Advocate representing the opposite parties/decree holder.

(2.) Mr. Tiwari criticised the impugned order dated February 16, 20'16 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Execution Case No. 63 of 2013 with prayer to set aside the same, since according to him, the same is illegal and perverse, as it has violated the provisions laid down under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that the opposite parties filed the ejectment suit, which was decreed in the year 2005. Being aggrieved the petitioners though preferred appeal and the same is pending but since the opposite parties had put the said decree of ejectment suit of 2005 into execution in the year 2013 without service of notice as laid down under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code and therefore the order impugned rejecting the application of the petitioner for staying execution proceeding is bad in law.

(3.) Mr. Tiwari further submitted, when there was a mandate of the provision that if the decree would be put into execution after more than two years then notice to show cause against the judgment debtor would be a must, and, if the same could not be complied with, there would be the violation and this Court, should requires interference to set aside the said order.