Shivakant Prasad, J. - (1.) Intervener review petitioner Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. has prayed for review and/or recall of the order dated 8th November, 2017 passed by this Court in C.O. No. 3233 of 2017 inter alia, on the grounds that execution of decree and or dispossession of the review petitioner, cannot be had, as an application under the Order XXI Rule 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case No. 2982 of 2017 pending before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta refers to as the Executing Court would cause manifest injustice and grave miscarriage of justice to the review petitioner.
(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that Title Suit No. 5394 of 2008 has been decreed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta which decree was set aside on remand by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in appeal therefrom, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on appeal has been pleased to set aside the judgment and order of remand passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has been affirmed but in none of the proceeding the independent right of the review petitioner has been decided and that the review petitioner has a substantive right to be adjudicated in the said Misc. Case No. 2982 of 2017.
(3.) I have observed in the Order dated 8th November, 2017 under review that the question before this Court was whether Mc. Donald is a third party stranger in possession of the decreetal property. I have answered the said question in the negative by a reasoned order bearing in mind the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8361 of 2016. My finding in the said order is not at all based on the surmise. I am unable to accept the contention by the review petitioner that this Court was not authorized to act as an original forum for decision on such issue, particularly when such Misc. Case No. 2982 of 2017 is pending inasmuch as my finding recorded is based on the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the judgment debtor/opposite parties are running a restaurant business in the name and style of Mc. Donald as would also be depicted from the report of the bailiff and the endorsement of undertaking to vacate the premises within 15 days given by the Area Manager-in-Charge of Mc. Donald on behalf of Dipak Kumar Singh the judgment debtor/opposite party. This Court cannot sit on its own order under the garb of review of the same so as to find differently that this petitioner did not employ or authorized any representative in the name of Ramnath Singh.;