Calcutta High Court
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Santanu Mullick on 26 November, 2025
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Supratim Bhattacharya
OD-1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA 2025:CHC-OS:176-DB
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/12/2025
WITH CS/245/1995
In
APD/120/2015
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
Vs
SANTANU MULLICK, EXECUTOR & ORS.
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Date: 26th November, 2025.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Chanchal Kr. Dutta, Adv.
...for the applicant.
Mr. JishnuSaha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ishan Saha, Adv.
Mr. A. K. Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Aishwarya Kr. Awasthi, Adv.
...for the respondents.
The Court: The present application has been filed seeking further six
months' time to vacate the premises. The petitioner, being the judgment
debtor, suffered a decree of eviction, which was affirmed in appeal by this
court. While so affirming, on the prayer of the judgment debtor/petitioner, a
limited stay was granted till October 31, 2025.
Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner 2025:CHC-OS:176-DB
does not intend to prefer any appeal against the said judgment of the
Appellate Court and wants to vacate the premises within six months.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the decree holders/opposite
parties points out that already about three months' time was granted to the
judgment debtor to vacate the premises. However, at this juncture, the
judgment debtor is now seeking to prolong the time further.
Upon a perusal of the averments made in the application, we find that
the petitioner submits that they would deliver vacant possession of the suit
property to the authorized owner, that is, the decree holder within a further
period of six months.
However, it is evident from the letter written on behalf of the judgment
debtor to the decree holder (which is annexed to the present application)
that at present, a title suit is pending at the behest of the dealer under the
judgment debtor, which is in actual physical possession of the suit property
and has obtained an injunction in its independent suit against the judgment
debtor. As such, even if we were to grant further time of six months to the
judgment debtor to vacate the premises, the judgment debtor might not be
in a position to vacate and deliver unencumbered possession to the decree
holder in view of the subsistence of the injunction order as well as pendency
of the suit at the behest of the dealer, which is allegedly in actual physical
possession of the property. Hence, grant of further time to the judgment
debtor would be a futile exercise and would unnecessarily prolong the agony
of the decree holder.
In view of the above, GA/12/2025 is dismissed on contest, however,
without any order as to costs.
Liberty is granted to the decree holder to immediately proceed with the 2025:CHC-OS:176-DB
connected execution case. It is expected that the executing court shall
decide the said execution case as expeditiously as the business of the said
court permits, in terms of the timelines granted by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in various recent judgments.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)
KB
AR (CR)
