Churamoni Gorai & Ors vs Dhiren Gorai

Shampa Sarkar, J

The judgment debtors, who are claiming through the original defendant in Title Execution Case No. 10 of 2013 arising out of judgment and decree dated December 19, 2012 passed in Title Suit No. 99 of 2008, has filed this revisional application, being aggrieved by an order dated December 2, 2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Assansol, District - Paschim Bardhaman.

By the order impugned, the application for stay filed by the judgment debtor in Title Execution Case No. 10 of 2013 was rejected. The learned court found that the judgment debtors being aggrieved by the judgment and decree had preferred a first appeal which was dismissed on January 31, 2017 being Title Appeal No. 43 of 2013. Thereafter, the judgment debtors/ petitioners preferred a second appeal before this Court which was rejected at the time of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned court found that in the application for stay no cogent reasons had been stated as to why the Title Execution Case should be stayed.

This is a case of eviction of licensee. The petitioners have been unsuccessful throughout the proceedings and, as such, the learned court below did not find any cogent reason to stay the Title Execution Case which has been pending since 2013.

It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Misc. Case No. 40 of 2018 filed under Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been decided prior to execution of the decree.

I find that the appeal that was preferred by the petitioners and the contention of the petitioners/appellants were not accepted by the learned court of appeal below nor was the second appeal filed by the petitioners admitted by this Court.

The learned Court of appeal below, recorded that the petitioners had also failed to produce any documents by way of additional evidence in support of their contentions with regard to title. Thus, the learned Executing Court thought it fit that the execution proceeding should not be stayed unnecessarily and the decree holder should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree. The order impugned is well reasoned. I find that the Misc. Case has been fixed for hearing on April 16, 2020.

This revisional application is dismissed without interfering with the order impugned.

The petitioners will be at liberty to pray for preponement of the hearing of the Misc. Case by filing an appropriate application upon service of an advance copy to the decree holder and the said Misc. Case should be disposed of expeditiously.

The observations made hereinbefore, are only for disposal of the revisional application and the learned court below will not be influenced by the said observations.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible subject to compliance of all usual formalities.