7 S Jagannath Rao vs Smt. Rina Dey
2022 Latest Caselaw 2792 Cal

22    12.05.
 AG   2022
M/R
KB                                 C.O. 955 of 2022
 Ct
07                                 S Jagannath Rao
                                          vs
                                    Smt. Rina Dey.

               Ms. Baisali Ghosal,
               Mr. Niraj Kumar Singh
                                               ... For the petitioner.
               Mr. Haradhan Banerjee,
               Mr. Amitava Pain,
               Mr. S. Dutta,
               Ms. P. P. Mukherjee.
                                               ... for the opposite party.

The subject matter of challenge in this revisional

application is against the rejection of an application

under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed

by the petitioner/Jdr. disputing with the identity of the

suit property.

The background of the case has been noted by the

court below in the order impugned, which may be

mentioned as hereunder:

" According to the JDR, the DHR had filed a suit for eviction of licensee against the present JDR being Title Suit No. 92 of 2011. The said suit was decreed in favour of the present DHR and subsequently an appeal was filed against such decree by the JDR in which the decision of the trial court was set aside and the matter was sent back to remand on certain points. However, a second appeal was then filed by the present DHR before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the decision of the first appeal was reversed therein. Subsequent to that, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the JDR which was also dismissed and the JDR thereafter filed a review petition which faced the same fate and was dismissed on 06.05.2021. In the mean time, the DHR has filed the instant execution application from which it has appeared that the 'A' schedule suit property and 'B' schedule suit portion has not been properly and specifically described as a result of which the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit

No. 92 of 2011 has become infrustuous. Therefore, the JDR has filed the instant application praying for quashing or nullifying the judgment and decree respectively dated 10.02.2004 passed in Title Suit No. 92 of 2011 on the ground that the same has been erroneously passed on the basis of incomplete description of the suit property."

It is at the stage of execution, after the SLP was

dismissed by the Apex Court, followed by rejection of

review application, the petitioner/Jdr. filed instant

application under Order 7 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. disputing

with the identity of the suit property.

The court below has rejected the application

subscribing the reasons therefor.

In view of the reasoned order, this court finds

reasons not to interfere with the impugned order.

The revisioanl application stands dismissed.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)