HARISH TANDON,J. - (1.) After being unsuccessful at all stages, the plaintiff has managed some of the dissenting defendants who disassociated themselves from Group-D to file the instant application recalling an order dated 14th June, 2016 whereby and whereunder the execution proceeding was set at rest after recording satisfaction. The solitary ground of such recalling of the order is jotted down in paragraph 15 of the instant application which this Court feels necessary to be reproduced as under: "From the said order dated 14th June, 2016, it appears that on the said date only the Learned Advocate of the defendant Nos.18(a) to 18(d), Mr. P. C. Paul Choudhury, with Mr. D. Banerjee, Advocate and the Learned Advocate of the defendant No.3, Mr. Koushik Bhattya, were appeared before the Hon'ble Executing Court. Further it appears that by the said order submission have been recorded on behalf of the members of Groups 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E', for recording the satisfaction of the Decree, although none was appeared on behalf of the other defendant Nos.2, 4 to 7, 8 to 15, and 17(a)."
(2.) It is not in dispute that the partition commissioner submitted the report alloting the joint properties in accordance with the preliminary decree by dividing in different groups. The present application is filed by the defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 which were included in Group-D. In the report submitted by the partition commissioner an exception was taken to the said report by the plaintiff but could not succeed in setting aside the same. At different stages approaches were made to the Division Bench as and when the executing Court passed an order and those appeals were either dismissed or disposed of without interfering with the report of the partition commissioner. The plaintiff who was instrumental in giving birth to the litigation at the execution stage started putting spanner to the progress of the matter which was pending since last two decades. As a last grasping resort, the plaintiff had filed an application essentially under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the decree is inexecutable and liable to be set aside.
(3.) The said application was dismissed by this Court and the order was carried to a Division Bench and this Court is informed that the said appeal got dismissed as well. Subsequently, the Court recorded the satisfaction of a decree on the submissions advanced by the counsels representing their respective clients. Taking advantage of non-recording of the names of the learned advocate who were present on the said date, the submissions are made in paragraph 15 of the said application to inculcate a sense in the mind of the learned Judge that they were represented on the said date.;