SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) Having lost the legal battle in connection with Order No. 124 dated 29.02.2016 and Order No. 125 dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Judge 6th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Execution Case No. 172 of 2005 [arising out of Ejectment Suit No. 74 of 2003 -C], the present petitioner/judgment debtor has come before this Court with a prayer to set aside the impugned order.
(2.) At the very outset I would like to say that the decree - holder/opposite party has 'moved heaven and earth' to get the fruits of the decree and his journey can be equated with an expedition to 'Mount Everest.' It was a long circuitous, assiduous journey by a roller -coaster.
(3.) I have given all 'my ears' at the time of argument of rival parties. However, in the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the present petitioner/judgment debtor has ventilated his grievances, wherein he has explained the historical events of the dispute. The present decree -holder/opposite party had filed a suit against him for eviction on the ground of defaulter and reasonable requirement and got a decree from the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 74 of 2003 -C after a contested full -fledged trial. At the relevant point of time the appellate authority was West Bengal Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal and accordingly the present petitioner/judgment debtor has preferred an appeal bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1347 of 2005 [O.A. (P) - 2163 of 2005] before Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 74 of 2003 -C. The learned Land Reforms Tenancy Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the learned Trial Court. But before filing of the appeal, the present petitioner/judgment debtor has filed a case before this Hon'ble Court bearing No. A.S.T. No. 2126 of 2005 claiming that he has been dispossessed without due process of law. Considering the urgency and the fact that it was not executed in accordance with law, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on 20.12.2005 asking "the officer -in -charge of Muchipara Police Station to put back the petitioner into possession of the Decretal Premises No. 48., Nirmal Chandra Street, in course of this day." By virtue of the said order, the present petitioner got back his possession, which he had.;