Narayan Prasad Lohia vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6023 Cal

08.09.20203
Item No. 12
Ct. No.12.
PG
                               M.A.T. 1399 of 2014
                                       With
                     IA No. CAN 4 of 2020(Old CAN 505 of 2020)
                                         With
                              IA No. CAN 5 of 2023
                                       With
                              IA No. CAN 6 of 2023


                              Narayan Prasad Lohia.
                                        Vs.
                          State of West Bengal & Ors.

              Mr. Rittick Chowdhury,
              Mr. Saniib Mandal
                             ..............for the appellant

              Mr. Amit Sinha          ..... for the respondent no. 6

We have heard Mr. Rittick Chowdhury,

learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr.

Amit Sinha, learned Advocate appearing for the

respondent no.6.

There is delay of 111 days in filing the

appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support

of the petition and we find that sufficient cause has

been shown for not being able to prefer the appeal

within the period of limitation.

I.A. No.CAN 6 of 2023 is allowed and the

delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The 6th respondent filed a writ petition

being WP 20618(W) of 2013 seeking relief against the

police authorities to prevent the illegal parking of the

vehicles in her property. The learned Judge by the

order dated 24.07.2013 directed the concerned police

to take steps to see that the property belongs to the

respondent no.5 and 6 is not encroached by any

person.

The learned Judge also observed that if any

private party claims title, it will be open to the 6 th

respondent to approach the civil Court for

appropriate orders.

Challenging the said order, the appellant

has come out with the present appeal.

According to the appellant, he is running a

retail outlet in the name and style of "M/s. East India

Service Station", retail outlet dealership of petroleum

products and petrol pump of Indian Oil Corporation

Limited. There are three underground petrol tanks in

their property in question. Originally, there was a

lease under the previous owner. Subsequently, the

respondent nos.5 and 6 purchased this property and

there was a partition suit number 22 of 1997 was

filed by the 6th respondent before the learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri. As per the orders in

the said suit, joint account was opened in the name

of the respondent nos.5 and 6 and rents were

deposited by the tenants.

According to the learned counsel for the

appellant, the appellant entered into an agreement

for sale with the 6th respondent and paid a sum of

Rs.2 lakhs as advance. The sale deed to be executed

after the judgment in the civil suit. According to the

learned counsel for the appellant, the 6th respondent

has suppressed all these facts and without

impleading the appellant, obtained orders behind the

back of the appellant.

The learned counsel for the 6 th respondent

submitted that the agreement for sale was entered

into between the appellant and the 6th respondent on

the condition that the sale deed to be executed within

three years and/or after the judgment in the civil

suit, whichever is earlier and there was an arbitration

clause in the said agreement and the parties

approached the arbitrator and an Award was passed.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the 6 th

respondent has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

From the above materials, it is seen that

the appellant is claiming that he is in possession of

the property in question and running retail outlet

dealership of petroleum products and petrol pump

having three underground tanks in his property in

question.

According to the learned counsel for 6 th

respondent, the appellant is not running any retail

outlet dealership of petroleum products and petrol

pump.

In view of the above disputed facts, as

observed by the learned Single Judge, the 6 th

respondent has to approach the civil Court for

appropriate orders. Without 6th respondent obtaining

any appropriate orders from the civil Court, the

respondent nos. 1 to 4 cannot interfere with the

parking of the vehicle or running the business, as

claimed by the appellant.

With the above observations, the appeal is

disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this

order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties

expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

(V.M. Velumani, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)