Prabuddha Sankar Banerjee, J. - (1.) - This revisional application is one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against Order dated 8.7.2002 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, at Howrah in connection with T. Ex. No. 10 of 2001.
(2.) The fact leading to filing of the instant revisional application may be summed up thus : i) Gobinda Chandra Pal, the predecessor-in-interest of some of the Opposite Parties took lease (Thika) with respect to the property in question from one Santosh Kumar Dutta, the predecessor-in-interest of Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 3 for a period of 5 years starting from 21.9.2955. The said lease was extended from time to time. ii) On 5.12.1975 Gobinda Chandra Pal entered into an agreement for sale of the said property with Santosh Kumar Dutta. After Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition & Regulation) Act, 1981 came into operation, Gobinda Chandra Pal deposited rent for the years 1982-86 before the Thika Controller. iii) One suit was filed being T.S. No. 92 of 1982 against Santosh Kumar Dutta and Gobinda Chandra Pal by Opposite Party No. 1 for specific performance of Contract for sale. Santosh Kumar Dutta supported the case of the plaintiff in that suit. However, Gobinda Chandra Pal denied the allegations made in the plaint. The said Gobinda Chandra Pal after getting permission from the Court let out the suit property to the petitioner of this case by a registered Deed of Lease. In the year 1987 Gobinda Chandra Pal sold out the machine, equipments, fixtures, fitting etc. which were installed in the suit premises to the present petitioner. iv) The present petitioner filed one application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code in the said suit. v) In the year 1994 Gobinda Chandra Pal died and his legal heirs were substituted. However, it is the case of the present petitioner that the said legal heirs colluded with the plaintiff of that case. The application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code was rejected by the Court. vi) On 29.8.1997 the said suit being T.S. 92 of 1982 was decreed. vii) The present petitioner filed one suit being Title Suit No. 195 of 1997 against. the Opposite Parties for declaration that the decree passed in connection with T.S. No. 92 of 1982 is vitiated by fraud, collusion and the same is not binding upon the petitioner and also for setting aside the said decree. viii) In the said suit the present petitioner as plaintiff filed one application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 which was rejected by the trial Court. ix) Against that order the petitioner moved before the higher forum and the number of the appeal was Misc. Appeal No. 243 of 1997. x) There was interim order of status quo passed by the Learned District Judge which was extended from time to time. xi) In the meantime, the Decree Holder of T.S. No. 92 of 1982 tiled one execution case which was numbered as Title Execution Case No. 10 of 1997. The present Opposite Party filed one revisional application which was numbered as C. O. No. 264 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Court against order dated 11.11.1997 passed by the Learned District Judge in connection with Misc. Appeal No. 243 of 1997. Though there was caveat, no opportunity was given to the caveator and the Hon'ble Court stayed the operation of the ex-parte interim order of injunction. xii) The present petitioner filed one application for vacating the said order and in the meantime, the Opposite Party taking advantage of the order of the Hon'ble Court took possession of the suit property. xiii) The present petitioner filed one application for restoration of possession. xiv) Though the revisional application was rejected, the application for restoration of possession was allowed and against that order, the Opposite Party No. 1 moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. xv) The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the said Special Leave Petition with some observation. xvi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the District Judge to dispose of the Misc. appeal i. e. 243 of 1997. xvii) In the meantime, the present petitioner filed one application before the executing Court under Section 144 of. Civil Procedure Code. xviii) The Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the Misc. Appeal on the ground that the appellant is not in possession of the suit property. Regarding restoration of possession with the help of the Police, the appellate Court opined that it was a matter to be dealt with by the executing Court. xix) Thereafter, the present petitioner filed one application under Section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for registering the same as execution case which was numbered as Title Execution Case No. 10 of 2001. xx) Learned Executing Court rejected the said execution case holding that the previous execution case being Title Execution No. 16 of 1997 has been disposed of with full satisfaction and as such, the subsequent execution case is not maintainable.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order of the Learned Judge of the executing Court, the instant revision has been preferred by the present petitioner.;