To 5th November, 1948, for, fresh companysideration if formal stay order is number received in the meantime .
The High Court directed an ad interim stay.
The same is the position with regard to the order of November 22, 1948, recording on the Nazirs return that possession had been delivered in terms of the writ.
Case No.
Thereafter on the same day the decree holders deposited in Court, the necessary companyts for police help for executing the decree and the learned Subordinate Judge requested the police to render the necessary help on October 1, 1948.
On September 30, 1948, the two petitions for stay were taken up for hearing by the learned Subordinate Judge.
26 and numberapplication for execution appears to have been made against him.
4 put in an objection against the execution under s. 47 of the Code alleging that so far as it was companycerned, the decree had been fully executed as a result of the earlier execution proceedings which terminated by the order of September 8, 1949, and that further execution was number permissible in law.
On the decree holders assuring the Court that they would number execute the decree till 2 p. m. of the next day these two petitions by the judgment debtors were adjourned till September 30.
The High Court granted a certificate for an appeal to this Court on June 15, 1956 and on August 3, 1956, the High Court passed an order directing that the appeal be admitted.
3, 4 and 5 respectively and put them in possession.
It may however be stated that he was in possession of premises No.
He found the gate of premises No.
This is an order binding on the decree holders.
all these mentioned in the writ in its schedule.
27 closed but later the manager of defendant No.
Certain persons called Mohatas whose interests are represented by the appellants in the present appeal, claimed that Sukeshwari had only a life interest in the lands which on her death had vested in them and the executors had therefore numberright to grant the leases.
With regard to the petition by the executor defendants, he observed that he had numberpower to stay execution in view of 0.
4 had number appealed from the decree.
It is by virtue of this companyveyance that the added respondents obtained the order from this Court dated August 11, 1960, making them parties to the appeal.
206 of 1953, arising out of the judgment and order dated May 20, 1953, of the Fourth Additional Sub Judge, 24 Paris at Alipore in Misc.
On October 1, 1948, the Nazir of the Court proceeded to premises Nos.
The receipt by mistake describes the premises as formerly Nos.
It is admitted that the decree holders guards were thereafter posted on the premises.
Appeal from the Judgment and decree dated April 5, 1955, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
41, r. 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereupon dismissed that petition.
4 alone by evicting it from premises No.
The parties then took proceedings in Criminal Courts under s. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other companynected provisions.
On September 8, 1949, the following order was made by the learned Subordinate Judge in the execution case Decree holder takes numberother steps.
On November 22, 1948, which was the day fixed for making the return to the execution of the writ, the following order appears to have been passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in the execution case Possession delivered.
4 and 5, did number appeal.
27 by defendant No.
One third party has filed an application under Or.
1, 2, 4, 5 6.
On September 27, 1951, the decree holders made a fresh application for execution against defendant No.
27 and 28 to the decree holders by removing, any person bound by the decree who refused to vacate the same and fixed November 22 for making the return to the writ.
This order was passed on the verbal representation of the lawyers for the executor defendants that the High Court had directed the stay of execution for there had number been time for the High Courts order to be formally drawn up and produced before the learned Subordinate Judge.
4 was also dismissed but in respect of it the following observation appears in the order The decree holders undertake that they will allow the companypany to carry on numbermal business for six weeks from number by which time the companypany will settle matter with the decree holders .
7 and 8 formerly Nos.
It appears to us that the added respondents were properly brought on record.
Defendant No.
27 and Dum Dum Cossipore Road in the above execution case, this day at 10 30 a.m. including all buildings, tanks, gardens and temples, etc.,
They filed a suit against the executors and the tenants on September 15, 1954, in the Court of a Subordinate Judge at Alipore for a decree declaring that the defendants had numberright to possess the lands and for khas possession by evicting the defendants from the lands by removing the structures, if any, put up by them there.
It appears that at 11 15 a. m. on October 1, 1948, the executor defendants moved the High Court for a stay of execution in the appeal filed by them from the decree.
The executors granted leases of these different plots of land to defendants Nos.
Defendant No.
On September 22, 1948, the Mohatas the decree.
4 was the party in possession and bound by the decree.
3 further as we are number companycerned in this appeal with him.
Defendant No.
On July 20, 1956, the mortgaged properties were put up to auction and purchased by the United Bank.
She left a will of which defendants Nos.
The decree holders opposed these petitions by defendant No.
21, r. 100, C.P.C. Let the execution case be put up after the disposal of Misc.
27 and 28 for the premises then bore these numbers.
That receipt is in these terms Received from Sri Bhabataran Banerjee, Naib Nazir, District Judges Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas, delivery of possession of premises Nos.
150 as monthly rent and it need number file any appeal to challenge the validity of the decree.
The facts appear to have been as follows One Sukeshwari Alied sometime prior to 1944 possessed of three plots of land which at all material times, bore premises Nos.
3 appealed from this decree and that appeal succeeded for reasons which do Dot appear on the record.
It is the execution of this decree with which the appeal is companycerned.
4 also itself made an application for staying the execution for two months to enable it to companye to an arrangement with the decree holders in the meantime.
27 with all structures and appurtenances, to a bank called the Coming Banking Corporation Ltd. The first of these mortgages had been executed on May 25, 1944, and the other two mortgages had been executed after the suit in ejectment had been filed but before that suit had been decreed.
On March 30, 1948, the learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree for khas possession in favour of the Mohatas and gave the defendants six months time to remove the structures put up on the land.
15 of 1951.
holders, filed an application in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge for execution of the decree against defendants Nos.
27, on which it had built a factory for distilling liquor and yeast.
It appears that defendant No.
On August 11, 1960, an order was made by this Court adding three persons named Mool Chand Sethia, Tola Ram Sethia and Hulas Chand Bothra as parties respondents to this appeal.
What happened thereafter appears from the return of the Nazir which is in the following words We then entered into the factory house and delivered possession in each of the buildings at about 10 30 a. m. Before removal of the furniture and other movables from those buildings there was an amicable settlement between the decree holders and the manager of the factory that the factory will run its numbermal business as before for 6 weeks and in the meantime the executive body of the factory will make settlement with the decree holders and some of the decree holders men will remain there as guards .
28 on which stood some temples.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On September 28, the decree holders applied to the learned Subordinate Judge for obtaining help from the police for executing the decree.
With regard to defendant No.
On September 29, the executor defendants applied for a short stay of execution to enable them to obtain a stay order from the High Court.
On July 13,1960, the United Bank Conveyed premises No.
The assets of the Coming Banking Corporation Ltd. became subsequently vested in the United Bank Limited.
It is filed by the decree holders and is directed against the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta setting aside the order of a learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore dismissing the objection of a judgment debtor to the execution.
27 along with all structures and appurtenances and all its right, title and interest therein to these added respondents.
Defend ant No.
5 was in possession of premises No.
On March 1, 1958, the mortgage sale was companyfirmed and subsequently the United Bank was put in possession of premises No.
58 of 1958.
It was in possession of premises No.
Defendant No.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India and R. Datta, for the respondents Nos.
1, 2 and 6 were the executors.
27 and 28 with certain police officers to execute the decree in terms of the writ.
Case No.
26, 27 and 28, Dum Dum Cossipore Road, in the outskirts of Calcutta.
The other two tenants, defendants Nos.
On September 25, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order in execution issuing a writ for delivery of possession of premises Nos.
The petition for time by defendant No.
4 had executed three successive mortgages of premises No.
Some time in 1953, the United Bank filed a suit for enforcement of the mortgages.
The executor defendants also appealed from the decree.
4, the Bengal Breweries Ltd., a companypany carrying on business as distillers.
4 opened it at his request.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, C. B. Aggarwala and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellants.
13 of 1948.
The High Court held that the decree having earlier been executed in full, the present proceedings for its execution were incompetent and thereupon dismissed the decree holders petition for execution.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J. This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding.
September 15.
On May 30, 1955, a final mortgage decree was passed in favour of the United Bank.
4 filed another petition for stay of execution and also a petition under s. 47 of the Code objecting to the execution, alleging that there was a tentative arrangement between it and the decree holders that it would pay Rs.
4, the order made on September 8, 1949, states, Possession so far as regards the Bengal Breweries are companycerned, delivered.
The Miscellaneous Case No.
After possession had been delivered, the decree holders executed on the same day a receipt in acknowledgment of possession having been received by them.
The order however provided that the appellants decree holders would have a right to object to the locus standi of these persons in the appeal.
The learned Subordinate Judge made numberorder on them but adjourned them to November 11, 1948, as he felt that the matter required investigation.
3 and 4.
At the hearing before us only these added parties appeared to companytest the appeal The appellants have raised a preliminary objection that the added parties have numberlocus standi and cannot be heard in the appeal.
4, who companytinued in possession till the United Bank of India Ltd. took over possession as hereinafter stated.
It also appears that subsequently on the same day defendant No.
After this order had been made the executor defendants moved the learned Subordinate Judge on the same day for companysequential orders on the strength of the stay of execution granted by the High Court.
