Soumitra Sen, J. - (1.) By this order the above two applications are being disposed of. G.A.No.2590 of 2003 has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs: "a) Sheriff of Calcutta be directed to put the plaintiff in possession of the entire 1st and 2nd floor of the said premises No.86, Purushottam Roy Street, Calcutta by removing the defendant and any other person found therein in terms of the order dated 11th May, 1976; b) The Officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar Police Station be directed to depute sufficient number of police personnel at the premises No.86, Purushottam Roy Street, Calcutta and to break open the lock of any room if any for the purpose of execution of the decree in terms of the order dated 11th May, 1976; c) Suitable direction be given to the Officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar Police Station to depute adequate number of police personnel at premises No.86, Purushottam Roy Street, Calcutta to render all kinds of assistance for recovery of possession of the said premises as well as for maintaining peace in the locality for such period as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; d) Such further and other orders be passed to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit premises in terms of the decree dated 22nd November, 1971; e) Such further and other order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
(2.) G.A.No.2324 of 2000 has been filed by one Raja Ram Singh, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs : "a) Decide by trial on evidence the questions/objections to execution of the decree dated November 22, 1971 passed in Suit No. 3443 of 1969 [Joy Krishna Arora also known as Joy Kissen Arora vs. Maulvi Abdur Rab Firoze Ahmed & Co.] as against your petitioner as stated inter alia at paragraph 30 of the petition and its various sub-paragraphs; b) Direct that your petitioner cannot be dispossessed by the plaintiff and/ or those claiming under and/or through him except by due process by separate suit, if available in accordance with law, if the objections to execution aforesaid, are sustained; c) Direct that your petitioner be supplied copies of all pleadings, affidavits, petitions, depositions, documents and process in Suit No.3443 of 1969 [Joy Krishna Arora also known as Joy Kissen Arora vs. Maulvi Abdur Rab Firoze Ahmed & Co.] including interlocutory process and orders passed thereon and final orders/decrees and/or all papers filed in Court of any description, whatsoever, on the usual terms; d) Pending disposal of the application, pass an interim order staying all further proceedings in execution of the decree dated November 22.1971 passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice Ramendra Mohan Datta in Suit No.3443 of 1969 [Joy Krishna Arora also known as Joy Kissen Arora vs. Maulvi Abdur Rab Firoze Ahmed & Co.]; e) Pending disposal of this application, pass an interim order restraining the plaintiff and/or his men, agents, servants, staff employees, assigns, successors-in-interest and/or any person claiming through and/or under him, from dispossession your petitioner from premises No. 86, Pandit Purushottam Roy Street, P. S. Burrabazar, Calcutta - 700 007; f) Pass ad interim order(s) in terms of prayers (c), (d) and (e) above; g) Pass suitable orders as to costs of and/or incidental to this application including legal expenses; h) Pass such other and/or further order(s)/direction(s) as may deem fit and proper."
(3.) Prayer-(a) of the application filed by Raja Ram Singh has already been granted and evidence have also been laid by various witnesses in the said proceedings. Before dealing with the controversy in issue some of the relevant facts are required to be stated which are as under: The plaintiff had filed the instant suit on 3rd of October, 1969 being Suit No.3443 of 1969, inter alia, praying for eviction of the defendant and for delivery of vacant possession of 1st and 2nd floor of premises No.86, Purushottam Roy Street, Calcutta. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 22nd November, 1971. The defendant preferred an appeal against the said decree, which was dismissed on 6th August, 1974. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which also stood dismissed on contest on 8th October. 1975, the plaintiff liled an application for execution on 20th November, 1975. In the said execution proceedings an order was passed on 11th of May, 1976, whereby the Sheriff was directed to deliver possession to the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure by removing the defendant and/or any person who may be found therein and bound by the decree. The Sheriff could not execute the order as there was resistance. Accordingly, a report was filed by the Sheriff on 2nd of July, 1976, wherein it was stated that police help would be necessary to break open the padlock as there was an apprehension of breach of peace. Thereafter, sometime in 1976, a suit was filed by one Lufter Rahaman before the City Civil Court, inter alia, contending therein that the decree passed by the Calcutta High Court was not binding upon him. The said suit was transferred to the High Court and was renumbered as Extraordinary Suit No.1 of 1977. A significant fact is required to be noted here that the plaintiff in the instant suit has alleged that the execution proceedings in Suit No.3443 of 1969 remained stayed in view of pendency of the suit filed by Luftar Rahaman. The said suit being Extraordinary Suit No. 1 of 1977 was principally a suit for a declaration that the decree passed in Suit No. 3443 of 1969 was not binding on the plaintiff being Luftar Rahaman and was not executable as against him. The said suit was dismissed on 25th of February, 1981. Luftar Rahaman preferred an appeal from the said order of dismissal being A.P.DNo.104 cof 1991. Sometime in 1994, Luftar Rahaman died. In March, 1998 the legal heirs of Luftar Rahaman filed an application for substitution after about four years. By an order dated 10th August, 1998, two orders were passed by the Division Bench whereby the application for substitution and the appeal being A.P.D No.104 of 1991 were dismissed. On 10th of May, 2000 from the office the bailiff after attempting to execute the decree filed a report stating therein that Raja Ram Singh was resisting the execution of the decree. On 14th of June, 2000 an application being G.A. No.2324 of 2000 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff/decree-holder for police help for the recovery of possession of the property in terms of the decree of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In 2003, the application being G.A.No.2590 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff praying for the reliefs as mentioned hereinbefore.;