SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) The Court : The judgment-debtor no.3 is present. On 1st December, 2017 when the judgment-debtor no.3 was examined by this Court, the judgment-debtor no.3 maintains the stand throughout that he had not left the premises no.16B, Madan Chatterjee Lane, Kolkata- 700 007. Although he was available at the said premises, he raised a doubt as to how could the police not found him at the said premises. This created an apprehension in the mind of the Court as the judgment-debtor no.3 appeared not in execution of arrest but on the basis of certain information he alleged to have received with regard to the matter being listed before this Court on that date. In order to the clear the doubt and relying upon the statement made by the judgment-debtor no.3 that he, for the last three years did not vacate the said premises and, in fact, was residing there only, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (IV), Central Division, Kolkata was directed to hold an investigation. In the report filed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 17th January, 2018 it is stated that during enquiry the local people of the locality was examined and they had stated that Anup Kumar Bharuka is not staying at 16B, Madan Chatterjee Lane, Kolkata- 700 007 since last three years. The judgment-debtor no.3 also examined and he stated that he left 16B, Madan Chatterjee Lane, Kolkata- 700 007 about three years ago and since then he has been residing with the family members at his elder brother's house located at Brij Dham Housing Complex, Flat No.10, Flat no.10, 225 Canal Street, P.S. Lake Town, Kolkata- 700 048. The said address was also verified with the assistance of the Lake Town Police Station on 6th January, 2018. The people of the locality were examined and they said that the judgment-debtor no.3 is presently staying at Flat No.10, Building No.10, 225 Canal Street, P.S. Lake Town, Kolkata- 700 048 since last three years with his elder brother. This report clearly shows that the judgment-debtor no.3 has given a false evidence on oath and has mislead this Court.
(2.) It is clear that he was avoiding intentionally and deliberately the process of law. Mr. Debangshu Dinda, Advocate who had represented the judgment-debtor on earlier occasion, submitted that he may be allowed to retire from this matter, although an affidavit of the judgment-debtor no.3 with his back sheet has been filed in this proceedings.
(3.) Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Advocate submits that he has now received instruction to represent the judgment-debtor no.3 in this proceedings and undertakes to file power within ten days from date.;