Shri. Jagat Singh v. Shri. Elumalai And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/5/2025 Shri Jagat Singh Vs Shri Elumalai and Others Ms. Babita Das ... for the petitioner Ms. A. S. Zinu ... for the respondents February 7, 2025 [AKB] Item no. 8 1.

This instant revision has been preferred challenging certain orders dated 23.04. 2024 to 23. 01.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), South Andaman, Port Blair in Execution Case No. 01 of 2012.

2.

Ms.Das, learned Advocate representing the petitioner/Judgment Debtor submits that the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner seeking for declaration and recovery of khas possession in respect of the suit property.Subsequently, the suit was decreed. However, the matter ultimately went up to this Court in a second appeal being SAT/005/2012, which was disposed of on 18.01.2013observing, inter alia, that the petitioner was in possession of entire suit property though he was entitled to possess 1/4th share thereof and his possession in excess of his share was declared to be illegal and therefore, the said Shri Jagat Singh was directed to deliver the 3/4th share of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs/Decree Holders, the respondents herein. 3.

Subsequently, thedecree was put into execution and the execution case was registered as Other Execution Case No. 01 of 2012. During pendency of the execution case one Ramesh Ch. Debnathpreferred an application under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, ultimately the application preferred by Ramesh Ch. Debnath under Or. XII Rule 35(3) of the Code was dismissed, but the said person has intervened in execution proceeding and even he has been added as respondent.

4.

Ms. Das further submits that due to the pendency of the execution case, the petitioner has been facing difficulty in having the land divided and in having her name recorded in the land revenue records. He contends that the learned Court below, without deciding whether the individual

added as a respondent has any right to intervene in the execution proceedings, has been granting adjournments to the added respondent upon mere request. Mr. Das seeks a direction for the expeditious disposal of the execution case.

5.

Ms. A. S. Zinu, learned Advocate representing the Decree Holder/respondent herein did not raise any objection to such prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

6.

Having heard the learned Advocate and upon perusal of the materials on record.

7.

In the present case, as noted earlier, the suit filed by the respondents herein was decreed. However, the decree was merged with the decree passed in the second appeal, SAT/005/2012. The second appeal was disposed ofholding, inter alia, that the petitioner is entitled to hold only a 1/4th share of the suit property. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the remaining 3/4th share of the suit property to the respondents.

8.

Subsequently, the decree was put into execution in Other Execution Case No. 01 of 2012. As mentioned earlier, one Ramesh Ch. Debnath filed an application under Order XXI Rule 35(3) read with Section 151 of the Code. The said application was rejected by an order dated 26.09.2022. 9.

The order dated 10.03.2014 passed in Other Execution Case No. 01 of 2012 indicates that the decree holders filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code. On the other hand, the petitioner/judgment debtor was inspired to file an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code, seeking the appointment of a commissioner to demarcate his portion of the land. He also filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 13 of the Code, although it is admitted that the suit was not one for partition. 10.

However, since the decree holders have filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code, it is expected that the learned Executing Court will first dispose of this application in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rule 100 of the Code, expeditiously. Thereafter, the learned Court should proceed to dispose of the next two pending applications.

11.

Therefore, in light of the above, this petition is disposed of, directing to the learned Trial Court to dispose of all pending applications and conclude the execution case, which has been pending since 2012, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)