Calcutta High Court
Swapna Roy vs Suvankar Banerjee on 13 February, 2025
OD-2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
EC/22/2024
SWAPNA ROY
VS
SUVANKAR BANERJEE
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Date : 13th February, 2025.
Appearance:
Ms. Tiana Bhattacgharyya, Adv.
Mr. Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
For the decree-holder.
Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Dipak Dey, Adv.
For the judgment-debtor.
1.
In course of her submission learned Advocate for the decree-holder, at the
very outset draws attention of this Court, to page 19 of the execution
application. It is submitted that in terms of the settlement as filed before
the appeal Court, the present judgment-debtor, Suvankar Banerjee is
duty-bound to pay Rs.25,00,000/- by sale of properties as mentioned in
serial no.1, 2 and 4 of the Second Schedule which is mentioned in page 23
of the instant application.
2. Ms. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the decree-holder further draws
attention of this Court to prayer (f) of Column 10 of the Tabular
Statement. It is submitted that an appropriate order of injunction may be
passed in terms of the said prayer.
3. Per contra, Ms. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
judgment-debtor submits before this Court that such prayer cannot be
entertained in view of the fact that in terms of the said settlement, the
judgment-debtor has to sell out the properties as mentioned in the Second
Schedule of the terms of settlement which forms part of the appellate
decree and further the judgment-debtor has to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the
decree-holder. It is further submitted by Ms. Banerjee that as on this day
her client has paid Rs.4,50,000/- to the decree-holder which is not
disputed by Ms. Bhattacharjee.
4. It is further submitted by Ms. Banerjee that this Court has no territorial
jurisdiction to pass an order of injunction in respect of the properties
which lies outside the territorial jurisdiction of the original side of this
Court. Ms. Banerjee places reliance upon a reported decision in the case
of Mechano Paper Machines Ltd. Vs NEPC Papers & Boards Ltd. & Ors.
reported in AIR 2012 Cal 26.
5. On careful consideration of the entire materials this Court finds no force
in the submission of Ms. Banerjee, inasmuch as at this stage this Court is
not going to execute the decree beyond its territorial jurisdiction as has
been prescribed under Section 39 of the CPC. This Court is conscious that
this Court being an executing Court cannot go beyond the decree.
However, this Court being an executing Court has every power to pass an
appropriate order to secure the decretal property intact so that the decree-
holder must not be deprived of the fruits of the decree.
6. In considered view of this Court, the prayer as made in clause (f) of
column 10 of the Tabular Statement is very innocuous inasmuch as the
decree-holder has sought for an injunction restraining the judgment-
debtor from dealing with and/or disposing and/or alienating or
transferring and/or parting with the possession of the property
mentioned in the Second Schedule of the terms of settlement which
formed the part of the decree till a prospective buyer is identified.
7. Considering the entire circumstances, there shall be an order of injunction
upon the judgment-debtor from disposing of and/or alienating and/or
transferring and/or parting with the possession of the property as
mentioned in serial no.1 and 4 of the Second Schedule of the said terms of
settlement till the end of April, 2015.
8. Let the matter be listed on 6th March, 2025 for further consideration.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
sd/
