BHUPENDRA NATH LAHIRI Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for stay of all further proceedings in Title Execution case No. 177 of 1955 of the Court of the Second Munsif. Alipore. The defendant appellant is the petitioner before me. Against him a decree for ejectment from certain premises was obtained by the plaintiff respondent opposite party. Thereupon the defendant preferred a second anneal to this court which is numbered as S. A 1388 of 1955. In the meantime, the plaintiff respondent started an execution case in Title Execution Case No 177of 1955 in the Court of the Second Additional Munsif at Alipore for enforcement of the decree for ejectment. The defendant petitioner applied to this Court for stay of execution of that decree and for stay of all further proceedings in the said execution case and obtained a Rule from this Court namely Civil Rule No. 2730 (s) 55 On 8-12-55, by consent of parties that Rule was made absolute by Lahiri, J on certain terms. Some of the said terms are reproduced below:-

(2.) IT appears that in terms of the above order the defendant petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1100/- in the trial Court including initial deposit of Rs. 1000/- as well as Rs. 100/- towards rent for the month of December, 1955 This deposit was made through his pleader Sri Sachindra Nath Roy. It was detected latter on that deposits of rent for the months of October and November, 1957 as well as for the months of April, July and September, 1958 were not made. The explanation given by the petitioner in regard to this matter is that the requisite sums of money were made over by him to the lawyer concerned in strict compliance with the order of this Court but the latter somehow did not make the necessary deposits in court and in support of this case a verified petition filed by the lawyer concerned in the lower Court is relied upon. The relevant portion of that verified petition is as follows:-

(3.) IT was argued on behalf of the defendant petitioner that so far as he is concerned, he was not to blame in any way and it was the lawyer concerned who after all is an officer of the Court who was directly responsible for breach of the conditions which had been imposed by this Court in its order dated the 8-12-55 at the time when execution was stayed conditionally.