Mr. D. Bhattacharya vs None
2021 Latest Caselaw 368 Tri

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA
                              Review Pet. 11/2021
                                   PRESENT
For Petitioner(s)         :      Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate
                                 Mr. S. Das, Advocate
For Respondent(s)         :      None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 18/03/2021 Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior counsel has submitted that the Decree Holders in the proceeding before the Executing Court had suppressed the material facts. Mr. Bhattacharya, has drawn my attention to an observation of the revenue court that while the suit property was surveyed then the Amin of the revenue department found the Decree Holders in possession of the suit property and, this fact, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, has not been brought by the Decree Holders in the proceeding before the Executing Court. I find no merit in the said submission of learned senior counsel for the reason that the findings of the revenue court cannot in any way bind the civil court. Before the civil court, the plaintiffs had instituted the suit for partition. Pleadings were exchanged by the parties to the suit. Thereafter issues were framed. Evidences were recorded by the parties to the lis. Thereafter, having heard the learned counsel, judgment was passed and decree was drawn. There was first appeal preferred by the present review petitioners which was also dismissed. Thus, the decree, as drawn by the learned trial Judge, has attained its finality. The Decree Holders have filed the execution petition for executing the decree as per the final decree. At one stage, the matter came up before this Court where the Judgment Debtors i.e. the present review petitioners have approached the Court by way of filing revision petition challenging the execution of the decree. That revision petition was also dismissed. While the execution proceeding was going on, the Judgment Debtors, the present review petitioners had filed an application stating that the Decree Holders have suppressed the aforesaid material facts before the Executing court.

I am at a loss to understand how the Judgment Debtors had been prejudiced from such suppression of facts that there is a finding before the revenue court that the Decree Holders were already in possession of the suit property.

I reiterate that it is the duty of the executing court to execute the decree and, he cannot go beyond the decree.

Be that at it may, the petitioners have prayed to review the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by this Court when the learned counsel for the petitioners did not appear. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this court had passed the order dated 26.02.2021 dismissing the revision petition.

I have heard the review petitioners and considered the same. In my opinion, in this way the execution proceeding cannot be stalled.

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Saikat