PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners.
(2.) This application is at the instance of the decree-holders and it is filed for expeditious disposal of the Title Execution Case No. 4 of 2009 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Howrah.
(3.) The decree-holders/petitioners herein got a decree for recovery of possession and other reliefs against the opposite parties in respect of the premises in question as mentioned in the application for execution of the decree. It appears from the materials on record that the opposite parties contested the said suit and the matter went up the second appeal and in all stages, the judgment-debtors lost their case. Therefore, the decree passed by the learned trial Judge has attained finality. In that situation, the decree-holders filed an application for execution of the decree. From the record, it appears that after filing of the application for execution, the leaned trial Judge has issued notice under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. Since the decree was filed within a period of two years from the last order, question of service of notice upon the judgment-debtors does not arise at all and the matter of hearing need not be done. But the learned Executing Court has passed such an order of hearing etc., and in this way, the matter is pending. It is also noticed that on 03.09.2011, the judgment/debtors did not take any step and in spite of that the learned Executing Court gave an opportunity to the judgment-debtor to file a written objection, though the written objection does not arise at all. In this way, the matter is being dragged and so the application for expeditious disposal has been preferred.;