Indra Chand Boral vs Mrityunjoy Mukherjee
2021 Latest Caselaw 1141 Cal/2

OD-17

                                ORDER SHEET
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                               ORIGINAL SIDE
                            [Via Video Conference]

                                   EC/410/2018

                       INDRA CHAND BORAL
                              Versus
            MRITYUNJOY MUKHERJEE, SUSMITA MUKHERJEE,
                       NOMITA BORAL & ORS.


 BEFORE:
 The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR

Date : 28th September, 2021 Appearance:

Mr. Sandeep Joshi, Adv.

...for the judgment-debtor nos. 1 & 2

The Court : This is an application for execution of a final decree dated 24 th

July, 1996. Pursuant to the earlier order of Court the Receiver has filed a

Report dated 18th February, 2020 which is taken on record.

It is submitted on behalf of the Receiver that copies of the Report have

been served on all the parties.

In a suit for partition a final decree dated 24 th July, 1996 had been passed.

It is admitted by the parties that the said decree has become binding and

enforceable.

By an order dated 11th February, 2020 a Coordinate Bench of this Court

had appointed a Receiver in respect of a dispute created in respect of lot-B as

described in the decree. It is alleged on behalf of the decree-holder that a

substantial portion of lot-B is still in the use, occupation and enjoyment of the

heirs of Late Arati Mukherjee being the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2

respectively. In the report filed by the Receiver it is being concluded that three

rooms in lot-B are blocked and being used by the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and

2.

The judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2 are represented and submit that they

have a claim for owelty money against the decree-holder. It is further

submitted on behalf of the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2 that they have also

filed an execution application which has since been dismissed for default and

appropriate steps are being taken for restoration of the same. On behalf of the

decree-holder it is submitted that the owelty money has been paid and there is

no dispute in respect of the same. This submission is disputed on behalf of the

judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2.

Be that as it may, I am of the view that the aspect of any payment on

account of owelty money ought to be adjudicated in the execution application

which has been filed by the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2.

However, there is no earthly reason why in view of the decree dated 24 th

July, 1996 and the Report filed on behalf of the receiver that the three rooms

presently in possession of the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2 being ought not to

be handed over to the decree holder.

In view of the aforesaid, the execution application is allowed by directing

the judgment-debtor nos. 1 and 2 to forthwith hand over possession of three

rooms of lot-B being blocked by them in the suit premises in terms of the

Report of the Receiver.

For the purposes of carrying out the aforesaid, Mr. Kaushik Majumdar

(9836169843), Advocate, Bar Association, Room No. 6 is appointed as a

Receiver to hand over possession of the said three rooms to the decree-holder.

For carrying out such exercise, the Receiver is to be paid a remuneration of

2500 gms.

I make it clear that all other disputes including the claim of the judgment-

debtor for owelty money would be decided independently in an appropriate

application.

With the aforesaid directions, EC/410/2018 stands disposed of.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)

TO/S.Bag