B vs Ct Md. Shahid & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7778 Cal

35 23.11. C.O. 3107 of 2022

AGM /RK Nisar Ahmed & Ors B Vs Ct Md. Shahid & Ors

Mr. Asit Baran Raut, Mr. Tuhin Subhra Raut, Ms. Ishita Raut, Mr. Asit Kumar Chowdhury, ... For the petitioners.

Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, Mr. Debrup Chowdhury, ... For the opposite party.

Mr. Asit Baran Raut, learned advocate appearing

for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned order

dated 3rd September, 2022 passed by learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Sealdah in Misc.

Case No. 62 of 2022 arising out of Title Suit No. 78 of

2015, submits that quantum of occupational charges

has been wrongly assessed in respect of a suit

property, which is alleged to be a thika tenancy

property.

There has been an ex parte decree granted in

this case, which was challenged upon inviting an

application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, and

registered as Misc Case No. 62 of 2022. In the

meantime, execution was levied, which was interfered

by the executing Court below granting stay with an

order impugned, directing petitioners to deposit Rs.

25,000/- per month, as occupational charges.

The basis of fixation of quantum of occupational

charges is thus disputed by Mr. Raut.

Per contra, Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, learned

advocate appearing for the caveator/opposite party

submits that about seven cottahs of land are under in

occupation of the petitioners/judgment-debtor.

Supporting the order of the Court below, Mr.

Chatterjee submits that the assessment of quantum of

occupational charges will remain uninterfered with, as

the same is most fair and reasonable.

Having considered the submissions of both

sides, it appears that quantum of occupational

charges is the bone of contention between the parties.

Admittedly, Misc case is pending under Order 9

Rule 13 CPC to assail the decree already granted in

this case.

Pending decision of such misc. case, the

impugned order is modified directing the petitioners to

deposit Rs. 18,000/- per month to the Court below

within the period as already ordered by the Court

below, which is of course subject to the final decision

of the pending litigation of the Court below.

The revisional application stands disposed of.

The impugned order stands modified to the

extent mentioned hereinabove.

Other portions of the order will, however, remain

unchanged.

The pending misc. case may be disposed of as

expeditiously as possible without granting

unnecessary adjournment unless it is extremely

unavoidable.

With this observation and direction, the

revisional application stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)