ARATI DEB Vs. ANNAPURNA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 19-7-2000 passed by the learned Sadar Munsif, Silchar, in MC 501/92 rejecting the application filed under Section 47 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the Code in Title Execution Case No. 12/77 is under challenge.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B. K. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AC Sharma, learned counsel for the Opposite parties.

(3.) The facts in short leading to the filing of the instant petition are that one Smt. Bharati Devi instituted Title Suit No. 82/60 inter alia for ejectment of the petitioner's predecessor in interest late Ram Pyari Devi and the predecessor of the opposite party, Haripada Chakraborty and others. The suit was decreed and was affirmed finally by this Court in SA 198/95. The Suit land was described in Schedule "Kha" which was a part of land set out in Schedule "Ka" to the plaint. The decree was put into execution by one Subudh Choudhury contending that he had purchased the land and the decree by a registered sale deed dated 8-5-1995. The execution proceeding was registered as Title Execution Case No. 12/97. The execution was resisted by the judgment-debtors on various grounds by filing separate objection petitions under Section 47, CPC. During the pendency of the objection petitions, Haripada Chakraborty (since deceased), the predecessor in interest of the present opposite parties, submitted an application on 27-6-1979 to strike out his name as a judgment debtor and to substitute him as the decree-holder in place of Subudh Choudhary. Another application was filed by Shri Subudh Choudhary disclosing sale of the decretal premises in favour of Haripada Chakraborty. The learned trial Court, however, rejected both the applications. The order being challenged before this Court in CR 43/80, the matter was remitted to the learned trial Court for fresh disposal after recording of evidence. The learned trial Court thereafter allowed the substitution of Haripada Chakraborty as decree holder by order dated 28-8-1986. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners before this Court.