Md. Ibrahim Ansari vs Sakeel Ahmed @ Shakil Ahemed
2022 Latest Caselaw 282 Cal

34. 03.02.2022 Ct. No.21 TGH

C.O. 726 of 2021

Md. Ibrahim Ansari

-Versus-

Sakeel Ahmed @ Shakil Ahemed

(Through Video Conference)

Mr. Sanjib Seth, Adv.

...for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjib Seth, learned Advocate appears on

behalf of the petitioner and files affidavit of service along

with the postal receipt and track report showing due

service on the opposite party/judgment-debtor.

The plaintiff/landlord/decree-holder has filed the

present revisional application challenging the order

dated December 15, 2020 passed by the Civil Judge,

Junior Division, 3rd Court, Howrah, in Misc. Case No.

222 of 2018 arising out of Title Suit No. 1499 of 2017

and whereby, the learned Court below refused to

consider the prayer made by the present petitioner for

disposal of the Misc. Case under Order IX, Rule 13 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the

defendant/opposite party and for extension order of stay

order dated 22.01.2019 till next date.

Prima facie, this Court does not find any prejudice

being caused to the petitioner by the impugned order as

it has not decided any right and interest of the

petitioner.

However, from the submission of the petitioner's

Advocate it appears that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed

Title Suit No.1499 of 2017 for eviction of the opposite

party and obtained an ex parte decree on October 14,

2018. The defendant/opposite party filed the Misc. Case

under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. praying for setting aside

the ex parte decree on December 24, 2018. In the

meantime, the plaintiff/petitioner has put the decree

into execution. Therefore, the defendant/judgment-

debtor filed an application in the Misc. Case praying for

stay of the execution of the ex parte decree and which

appears to have been allowed by the learned Court

below. Since the impugned order has not decided any

rights of the petitioner, nor has caused any prejudice to

the petitioner, therefore, I do not find any infirmities in

the impugned order and I am not inclined to set aside

the same.

However, the learned Court below is requested to

dispose of the Misc. Case under Order IX, Rule 13,

C.P.C. being registered as Misc. Case No. 222 of 2018

within two months from the date of communication of

this order without granting any sort of adjournment to

either of the parties.

Accordingly, the revisional application being C.O.

726 of 2021 is disposed of. Interim order, if any,

stands discharged.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of

all requisite formalities.

All parties are directed to act on a server copy

of this order duly downloaded from the official website

of this Court.

(Kesang Doma Bhutia, J.)