The Lieutenant Governor And Others v. Smti Gouri Mallick

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** CO/74/2025 The Lieutenant Governor and Others Vs Smti. Gouri Mallick Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the petitioners Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the opposite party December 17, 2025 [AKB] Item No.6 1.

The civil revision has been preferred praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 and 12.08.2025 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Port Blair in T.E. Case No. 04 of 2023.

2.

Vide the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division directed the execution of the decree in Title Execution Case No. 05 of 2023. 3.

Vide the order dated 12.08.2025 the learned Executing Court rejected the prayer of the judgement debtor/petitioner herein praying for stay of the execution proceedings in respect of the original decree dated 12.08.2022 and permitted the execution case to proceed.

4.

On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the learned Trial Court permitted the execution case to proceed on the basis of an order passed by the High Court on 14.12.2023 in WPA/1073/2023. In the said writ petition, the decree

holder/respondent herein had prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to jointly and severally to issue license in Form AG-1 (as per rule 164) in favour and in the name of the respondent herein conferring right, title and interest over Survey No. 7(P) and 8 measuring an area 0.40 hectare and 0.51 hectare respectively situated at Ramnagar village, Neil Islands, under Port Blair Tehsil, District South Andaman strictly in terms of Judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 118 of 2011 (previously numbered as Title Suit No. 58 of 2003). 5.

The petitioner's contention in WPA/1073/2023/ respondent herein was that the suit before the Trial Court was decreed on 12.08.2022 and the respondents/petitioners herein were directed to grant license in favour of the decree holder/ respondent herein.

6.

In writ application WPA/1073/2023 petitioner/respondent herein did not state anywhere in the writ application that an execution case had been registered and was dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2023 by the executing court. In fact the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent herein before the High Court was that they had not filed an execution case for putting the decree into execution.

7.

The Court in WPA/1073/2023 vide order dated 14.12.2023 directed as follows:

"Heard learned Counsels for the Petitioner and the Respondents.

The Petitioner by filing the instant Writ Petition has prayed for necessary directions upon the appropriate authorities to act in terms of the Judgement and Decree passed by a competent Civil Court in Title Suit No. 118 of 2011.

From the records it appears that the petitioner has not filed an execution case for putting the decree into. execution. In case the decree has not been challenged. before a higher forum the petitioner is at liberty to proceed for his relief in accordance with law before an appropriate Court/Authority.

The Writ Petition is disposed of."

8.

Learned counsel for the judgement debtor/petitioner herein submits that the respondent herein had suppressed the fact Title Execution No.1 of 2023 had already been initiated by the decree holder and the said execution case had already been dismissed vide an order dated 29.11.2023.

9.

The executing court on specific findings that the decree could not be executed, dismissed the execution case. The writ petitioner suppressing the said order of dismissal approached the High Court and obtained an order that the decree could be put in execution if it had not been done so.

10.

From materials on record it appears that WPA/1073/2023 was filed by the petitioner therein in substance praying for execution of the decree, when an execution case was already dismissed by the executing court. 11.

The petitioner without approaching the appropriate court challenging the said order of dismissal of the execution case, approached the High Court by suppressing the said order and obtained an order for execution of the decree afresh.

12.

The conduct of the petitioner herein is thus unfortunate and against professional ethics.

13.

The petitioner herein has now prayed for setting aside of the orders dated 25.01.2024 and 12.08.2025 passed in Title Execution Case No. 05 of 2023 has contended that the Trial Court incompliance of the order dated 14.12.2023 passed in WPA/1073/2023, permitted the institution of a fresh execution case being Title Execution case 05 of 2023 wherein the impugned orders have been passed.

14.

Thus considering the conduct the of the petitioner as noted above this Court finds that the order dated 14.12.2023 passed by this Court in WPA/1073/2023 was obtained by the petitioner by suppressing material facts, being an order of dismissal of an execution case vide order dated 29.11.2023, the civil revision is disposed of with the direction for payment of cost by the respondent herein to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to State legal Services Authorities, Andaman, within thirty days from the date of this order.

15.

The Civil Revision is allowed.

16.

The execution proceedings being 05 of 2023 registered on basis of an order dated 14.12.2023 passed in WPA/1073/2023 which was obtained by the petitioner therein, suppressing the order of dismissal of the execution case in respect of the same decree by the Trial Court in Title Execution No.1 of 2023 order dated 29.11.2023 and the execution

proceeding being 05 of 2023 and all orders passed therein including orders dated 25.01.2024 and 12.08.2025 are hereby quashed.

17.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for recording the disposal of Title Execution No. 5 of 2023, being quashed by this Court in view of the observation made above.

18.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]