Kamal Agarwal vs Estate Officer & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3873 Cal

    14
20.07.2021

mb

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

C.O. No. 1178 of 2021 (Via video conference)

M/s. Bhagwandas Jhabarmull represented by Kamal Agarwal

-Vs.-

Estate Officer & Anr.

Ms. Anwari Quraishi ...for the petitioner

Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee ...for the opposite parties

After completion of hearing, an adjournment

is sought for on the ground of absence of senior

counsel for the petitioner. However, since both

the sides already advanced arguments extensively

and this Court has already expressed its opinion

on the outcome of the revisional application,

there is no scope for granting such adjournment

at this belated stage.

The judgment-debtor in an eviction suit

under the Public Premises (Eviction of

Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 has preferred

the present revision against an order whereby

stay, as prayed for by the petitioner, was refused.

As submitted by learned senior counsel

appearing for the opposite parties/decree-holders

as well as is evident from the impugned order

itself, no order of stay of execution of the decree-

in-question, passed by this Court in F.A.T. No.

3387 of 1991, could be produced by the

petitioner.

As such, no fault can be found in the

impugned order, in the absence of any order of

stay having been produced by the petitioner in

the court below.

Accordingly, C.O. No. 1178 of 2021 is

disposed of without interfering with the impugned

order.

It is made clear that this order and/or the

order impugned herein shall not prevent the

petitioner from approaching the Court taking up

F.A.T. No. 3387 of 1991 for an order of stay and,

if so passed, to produce the same before the

executing court.

However, it is further clarified that mere

pendency of the appeal would not be an

impediment to the execution of the decree in the

meantime and the executing court shall proceed

with the execution case subject to production of

any order of stay, if passed in F.A.T. No. 3387 of

1991.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this

order, if applied for, be made available to the

parties upon compliance of all necessary

formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)