Basudev Panigrahi, J. - (1.) The decree-holders in Ejectment Suit No. 335/87 of the City Civil Court at Calcutta have preferred the instant revisional application against the order passed by the learned VIII Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta allowing the application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in Misc. Case No. 771/87.
(2.) The facts leading to the present revisional application are as follows:- That the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and one Smt. Purnima Brahmachari instituted an Ejectment Suit being Ejectment Suit No. 335/87 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta against the predecessors-in-interest of the opposite party No. 3, i.e. Prakriti Gupta alias Mrs. A Gupta since deceased. The petitioners had contended, inter alia, in the said ejectment suit that they are the owners of the suit premises being No. 7A, Short Street, Calcutta and the predecessors-in-interest of the opposite party No. 3 was a premises- tenant under them in respect of the ground floor portion of the said premises with servant's quarter and a garage at a rental of Rs. 350/- only payable according to English calendar. Since the erst-while tenant had illegaly sublet and/or assigned a portion of the suit premises to one Vijay Kumar Madhab Bewoor for wrongful gain without the knowledge of the petitioners and also was a regular defaulter in payment of rent, they have filed the suit for eviction of the tenant. The said suit was decreed ex parte against the predecessors-in-interest of the opposite party and consequently the Court directed recovery of possession of the suit premises. The Jdr., namely, the predecessors-in-interest of the opposite party when did not voluntarily surrender the possession, the petitioners levied an execution case in Ejectment Execution Case No. 4/89. Following such initiation of the execution proceeding the predecessors-in-interest of the opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, praying for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 5th October, 1988. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 1219/89. The petitioners immediately after service of notice of the above misc. case filed their written objections and thereafter the predecessors-in-interest of the opposite party No. 3 having taken no steps in the case, it was dismissed for default. In the meanwhile the original defendant having died, her legal heir and representative, the opposite party No. 3 was substituted in the Ejectment Execution Case No. 4/89.
(3.) After the opposite party No. 3 was substituted in place of the original Jdr. the writ of delivery was issued which was returnable by 18th of August, 1993. The Bailiff could not execute the said writ of delivery since there was stiff resistance not only by the opposite party No. 1 but also by opposite party No. 3 and their supporters and companies. Thereafter the petitioners were compelled to file an application under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, inter alia, praying for necessary orders for granting police aid at the time of delivery of possession by the Bailiff.;