Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) ALL these bunch of revisional applications are taken up together to avoid the prolixity of repetition of some facts as the orders impugned therein are passed in connection with the same execution proceedings.
(2.) A suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and recovery of possession instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party being Title Suit No. 9 of 1990 stood dismissed vide judgment and decree dated July 17, 1999 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri, District Darjeeling. The said judgment and decree was assailed before the learned District Judge, Darjeeling in O.C. Appeal No. 19 of 1999 which was subsequently transferred to the learned District Judge, Second Court at Siliguri. The Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the suit to the Trial Court for reconsideration as certain issues which are important and vital had not been addressed properly. The order of remand was assailed before the High Court in F.M.A. No. 1679 of 2003. Though the said appeal was admitted by the High Court under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure but no express order of stay of the further proceedings in the suit was passed. In absence of the specific order of stay, the Trial Court proceeded with the suit and again dismissed the same on August 24, 2006. The plaintiff/opposite party carried the said judgment and decree to the Appellate Court which was subsequently reversed on March 25, 2009. The Appellate Court not only declared the title of the plaintiff/opposite party but further passed an order for delivery of possession in respect of the suit premises within the stipulated period failing which the plaintiff/opposite party was allowed to execute the same. Since the possession was not delivered by the judgment debtor/petitioner, an execution case being No. 6 of 2009 was filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri. Till 25th August, 2010 the executing Court was not proceeding with the execution case in absence of the original copy of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court. After recording that the execution is in order, the Court thereafter directed the decree holder/opposite party to take necessary steps. Subsequently, the executing Court directed the issuance of the writ of possession to the process server and fixed the date for submission of the report. An application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 208 of Civil Rules and Orders was taken out by the decree holder/opposite party and by order No. 19 dated 5th May, 2011, the Court even after recording that the bailiff has returned the writ of possession unexecuted did not accept the same as it does not contain the signature of independent witness. The Executing Court also declined to pass an order for police help and directed the issuance of the writ of possession afresh. The bailiff again could not execute the writ of possession and returned the same along with the report. On 22nd November, 2013, the decree holder/opposite party took out further application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders praying for execution of the writ of possession through police help. By order No. 38 of even date the executing Court allowed the said application directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police to furnish the cost of seven male and one lady constable along with one Sub -Inspector/Assistant Sub Inspector to give adequate protection to the bailiff in course of the execution of the writ of possession. The said order is now assailed by the judgment debtor/petitioner in C.O. No. 3472 of 2015.
(3.) THE decree holder/opposite party subsequently prayed for an appointment of Amin which was eventually allowed by order No. 43 dated 28th January 2015. After depositing the cost, the Executing Court directed the Nazir to execute the decree by clearing the obstruction at the entrance of the suit land. On 14th March 2014, a report with sketch map of the land was received from the office of the BL & LRO where the said Amen was attached and the same was directed to be kept on record. A further application was taken out by the decree holder/opposite party for disconnection of the electricity so that the illegal structures standing on the suit premises can be demolished and/or removed with the help of police and Amin and the land of the decree holder/opposite party can be demarcated and/or identified for the purpose of execution.;