Alok Dey And ORS v. The Calcutta Dioceson Trust Association
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/28/2024 Alok Dey and others Vs The Calcutta Diocesan Trust Association Mr.A.K.Mandal ...
for the petitioners Mr.KMB Jayapal ...
for the respondent August 02, 2024 [SR] Item No.17 By filing this revisional application, the judgment debtors in Title Suit No. 2 of 1998, challenge order No.58 dated July 23, 2024, passed by the learned Executing Court in Other Execution No.01 of 2018.
An eviction suit was filed by the opposite party herein against the present petitioner in the year 1998. The suit was decreed after passage of 19 years in 2017. The plaintiff/decree holder initiated execution proceedings. Thereafter the judgment debtors applied under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the decree on the ground that it was passed ex parte.
Learned advocate for the opposite party herein says that the decree was not passed ex parte. The word 'ex parte' was erroneously used in the decree.
Be that as it may, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. I am told that the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal against such order of dismissal which is pending before the learned District Judge, Port Blair being Misc.Appeal No.16 of 2024.
In the execution proceedings, the Nazir filed a report on June 22, 2024. The report was to the effect that the door of the suit premises was found locked and thereafter the process server was resisted by the judgment debtors. A notice was
affixed on the front wall of the suit property in the presence of witnesses.
The judgment debtors made an application before the learned Executing Court for rejection of the aforesaid report of the Nazir saying that the same was riddled with inconsistency and was a false report. By the order sought to be assailed in this application, the learned Executing Court rejected such application of the judgment debtors. By the same order, the learned Executing Court allowed the application of the decree holder for police help for execution of the decree. I have gone through the order dated July 23, 2024 sought to be challenged by way of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I find no apparent infirmity in the said order nor any illegality or procedural impropriety. While exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court.
Its role is strictly supervisory. Such jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct excess of jurisdiction or patent illegality leading to manifest injustice. I do not find any ground to exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, it appears that the present application has been filed only for the purpose of stalling the proceedings for execution of a decree which was obtained by the opposite party after 19 years of litigation.
The application is completely meritless and mala fide. The application is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party. CO/28/2024 is dismissed accordingly.
( Arijit Banerjee J. )