Mr. G. K. Nama vs Mr. D. R. Chowdhury
2021 Latest Caselaw 726 Tri

                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA

                            Cont.Cas(C) 60 of 2020

For Petitioner(s)                 : Mr. G. K. Nama, Adv.
For Respondent(s)                 : Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Order 16.07.2021

Heard Mr. G. K. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. D. R. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel

assisted by Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the sole

respondent.

Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel has drawn this

court's attention to Para-16 of the judgment dated 25.02.2020

delivered in CRP 63 of 2018. The said Civil Revision Petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India was preferred by the petitioner

against the order dated 04.05.2018 delivered in Execution Case being

No.Exe(M) 03 of 2017 passed by the executing court.

In Para-16, the following has been observed and directed by

this court:

"16. The JDs are directed to pay the accrued amount on Rs.51,097/- as per the RIP to the decree-holder within a period of 1 (one) month from the day when a copy of this order would reach the executing court.

It is made further clear that, accrual would mean all benefits that will evolve in terms of the RIP. The JDs shall also produce the account of the RIP with a copy of the scheme to the executing court who will verify what is the accrual amount in terms of the RIP."

Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel has rightly

contended that this court had directed the executing court to verify the

quantum of the accrual in terms of the RIP. On such calculation, as

would be verified by the executing court JDs will be under obligation to

satisfy the decree. However, the petitioner has approached this court by

means of this petition for drawing up the contempt proceeding.

Having considered the facts thus, this court is of the view

that there is no foundation to draw up any contempt proceeding and as

such this contempt proceeding stands closed. The notice that was

issued on the sole respondent is recalled.

However, it is made absolutely clear that this direction will

not deter the decree holder, the petitioner herein, to approach the

executing court in respect of the calculation.

JUDGE

Dipak