LATIKA SINHA Vs. ANJU PODDAR
LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-32
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 04,2010

LATIKA SINHA Appellant
VERSUS
ANJU PODDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.)This application is at the instance of the judgment debtor and is directed against the order no.60 dated August 7, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No.109 of 2009 arising out of an Ejectment Case No.204 of 2007.
(2.)The short fact, necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application, is that the decreeholder/opposite party instituted a Title Suit No.163 of 2001 before the learned Judge, Third Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta. That suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The judgment debtor/petitioner herein/O.P. No.2 preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.125 of 2007 before the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta and that appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the decreeholder filed the Title Execution Case No.204 of 2007 for execution of the decree for recovery of possession. In that execution application, he also filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. being numbered Misc. Case No.109 of 2009 praying for police help. This misc. case is now pending for further cross-examination of the Court bailiff. The judgment debtor filed an application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. being numbered as Misc. Case No.22 of 2010. That misc. case was fixed for hearing before the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta.
(3.)The fact remained that the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta heard the appeal being the Title Appeal No.125 of 2007. Under the circumstances, the learned Chief Judge transferred the misc. case No.22 of 2010 before the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta for disposal. That misc. case no.22 of 2010 was disposed of by the learned Judge, Fifth Bench, Small Causes Court, Calcutta. Thereafter, he was proceeding with the title execution case as well as the other misc. case no.109 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 97 of the C.P.C. At that stage, the judgment debtor has come up with this application. While the learned Advocate for the petitioner was making submission pointing out the entire matter of the case, Mr. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the opposite party has fairly submitted that the he has no objection if the execution case and the other misc. case being Misc. Case No.109 of 2009 is taken up by the learned present Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta. He further submits that specific direction should be given upon the learned Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Calcutta for disposal of the said misc. case within a certain period and thereafter to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that at present there is a regular learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Calcutta and so if necessary directions are given for disposal of the misc. case, he has no objection.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.