Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Signotron (India) Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Nautica Hospitality ... on 16 March, 2022
9
sandip
Ct. 18
16.03.2022
C.O. No. 160 of 2022
M/s. Signotron (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
M/s. Nautica Hospitality Consulting Private
Limited.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta,
Mr. V.V.V. Sastry,
Mr. Nischay Mall,
Mr. Sourav Roy ... For the petitioner.
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy ... For the opposite party.
The opposite party has suffered a decree of
eviction in Title Suit No. 203 of 2019 passed by the
2nd Court of learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), at
Barasat, District - 24 Parganas (North).
The suit although was decreed but the
defendant was directed to vacate the suit property
after three months from the date of determination
and final adjudication of arrear rent in respect of
the suit property.
The plaintiff/decree-holder aggrieved by the
said portion of the said decree has preferred an
appeal being F.A.T. No. 191 of 2020 which is now
pending before the High Court.
The defendant, the opposite party herein
aggrieved by the said decree of eviction, preferred a
separate appeal being F.A.T. No. 194 of 2020, which
is also pending disposal before the High Court.
In the appeal preferred by the defendant, a
conditional order staying the further proceedings of
the execution case levied to execute the decree of
eviction being Title Execution Case No. 06 of 2020
was passed subject to the condition the defendant
depositing a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs with the Executing
Court within two weeks from September 03, 2020,
i.e. the date of the said order.
The defendant did not comply the said
condition, as a consequence thereof, the conditional
order of stay was vacated and the decree-holder was
granted liberty to proceed with the said execution
case.
The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by
the order dated July 09, 2020 passed in the appeal
preferred by the decree-holder stayed the portion of
the decree under challenge in the said appeal and
the decree-holder was permitted to proceed with the
said execution case.
The judgment-debtor at this juncture
approached the executing Court with an application
under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code praying stay
of the further proceedings of the said execution case
on the ground of pendency of a suit being Title Suit
No. 1040 of 2018 filed by the judgment-debtor
against the decree-holder in the 2nd Court of learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Barasat, District -
24 Parganas (North). In the said suit, the judgment-
debtor is praying for decree of declaration of its
tenancy right over the suit property and for a decree
of injunction as a consequential relief.
The executing Court by the order impugned
has stayed the further proceedings of the said
execution case till the disposal of the said suit.
The suit for eviction has been decreed on a
finding that the jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the plaintiff, the petitioner herein
and the defendant, the opposite party herein is an
admitted fact. In view of such finding in the said
judgment and decree and in the absence of any
order staying the operation of it, the relief sought
for in the suit filed by the judgement-debtor has
become infructuous, as such, mere pendency of the
said suit cannot be a fetter to the power of the
Executing Court to proceed with the execution case
levied to execute the decree of eviction.
The order impugned is, therefore, set aside.
The executing Court is directed to dispose of the
execution case as expeditiously as possible in
accordance with law without entertaining the prayer
of the parties for any unnecessary adjournment.
C.O. 160 of 2022 is allowed without any
order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order,
if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to
compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)
