Pratap Ghosh vs Suchitra Roy Chowdhury
2022 Latest Caselaw 7133 Cal

28.09.2022
 Ct. No. 32
  rpan/01                               FA 53 of 2022
                                               +
                                    IA No.: CAN 2 of 2022
                                               +
                       IA No.: CAN 3 of 2022
                                         Pratap Ghosh
                                             - Vs -
                               Suchitra Roy Chowdhury

                          Mr. Pradip Tarafdar,
                          Mr. Mohit Gupta
                                     .... for the Appellant.
                          Mr. Debasish Roy,
                          Mr. Anirban Dutta
                                     ..... for the Respondent.

By an earlier order dated 19 th September, 2022, we

directed the respondent to remove the stopcock from the

pipeline leading to the tenanted flat from the water tank on

the roof and to submit a report before this Court in the form

of an affidavit.

Pursuant to such direction, Mr. Roy, learned advocate

appearing for the respondent has placed before us a report,

filed by the respondent in the form of an affidavit. Let the

said report be kept on record. A copy of the said report has

also been handed over to Mr. Tarafdar, learned advocate

appearing for the appellant. From the report, as filed, we

find that the respondent in terms of our direction has

removed the stopcock from the pipeline leading to the

tenanted portion from the main tank.

In view thereof, no further order is required to be

passed in the application, being CAN 2 of 2022 and the

same is, accordingly, disposed of.

The application, being CAN 3 of 2022 has been

preferred by the appellant inter alia praying for modification

of the earlier order passed by this Court on 8 th March, 2022.

While disposing of the stay application, being CAN 1 of

2021, on 8th March, 2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court

granted an unconditional stay of operation of the impugned

judgment and decree for a period of two weeks, subject to

payment of `11,52,000/- by the appellant within the said

period. It was also observed that in the event such payment

is made and the appellant continues to pay occupational

charges of `35,000/- per month, the stay shall continue till

the disposal of the appeal.

Mr. Tarafdar, learned advocate appearing for the

appellant submits that the amount of occupational charges,

as directed to be paid, is exorbitant and the same needs to

be reduced.

Such prayer of Mr. Tarafdar has been opposed by Mr.

Roy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

Records reveal that the present application has been

filed about six months after the order dated 8 th March, 2022

was passed. Considering the locale, the area occupied by

the appellant, the coordinate Bench of this Court fixed

occupational charges to be `35,000/- per month. We do not

find such amount to be exorbitant and as such, we are not

inclined to modify the order dated 8 th March, 2022. In view

thereof, the application, being CAN 3 of 2022 is dismissed.

Mr. Roy informs us that the lower court records have

already arrived. But a defect has been indicated in the

office report dated 18th April, 2022.

The defect, as pointed out is that - 'Exhibit no.11

(Postal receipt) does not bear the office seal of the P.O of the

learned Court below.'

To avoid further delay, the said defect be ignored and

the lower court records, as arrived, be treated to be

complete.

We direct the appellant to file the paper books within

four weeks after the Vacation.

The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter

for final hearing after filing of the paper books

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all

requisite formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)