- (1.) The execution application is appearing in the list at the instance of the Registrar. Original Side of this Court. At the very outset, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent, the judgment-debtor that in spite of directions passed by the orders dated January 28, 2019 and April 1, 2019 the Registrar, Original Side of this Court has not yet made over the proceeds of the fixed deposits made of Rs.11 lakh furnished by the respondent. The respondent subits that appropriate direction be passed against the Registrar, Original Side.
(2.) From the records it appears that, from time to time, this Court passed various orders towards execution of the money decree obtained by the petitioner against the respondent. However, on September 11, 2018 a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order directing, upon the judgment debtor furnishing a sum of Rs.11 lakh to the Registrar, Original Side of this court within a week from that date the execution proceeding shall remain stayed. In terms of the order dated September 11, 2018 the respondent judgment debtor furnished a sum of Rs.11 lakh to the Registrar, Original Side of this Court and the same was invested in a fixed deposit maintained with HDFC Bank, Stephen House Branch, Kolkata. By an order dated January 28, 2019 the Registrar, Original Side was directed to encash the aforementioned fixed deposit and return the proceeds thereof to the respondent/ judgment debtor. It appears that on April 1, 2019 when the application appeared before a learned Single Judge of this Court the respondent complained that the Registrar, Original Side has not paid him the proceeds of the aforementioned fixed deposit. Accordingly, by an order dated April 1, 2019 a learned Single Judge extended the time for carrying out the order dated January 28, 2019 by the Registrar, Original Side for a period of fortnight. As mentioned earlier, even today it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the Registrar, Original Side is not complying with the orders dated January 28, 2019 and April 1, 2019 and he is not making over the proceeds of the fixed deposit to the judgment-debtor.
(3.) The Registrar, Original Side has, however, filed a report before this Court stating that in terms of the order dated January 28, 2019 already the fixed deposit of Rs.11 lakh maintained with the HDFC Bank has already been encashed and the Registry is ready to disburse of the fixed deposit to the respondent after deducting the Registrar's Commission at the rate of 1% on the principal amount. However, the name of Mr. M.K. Surana, Advocate who has filed the requisition for refund on behalf of the respondent as one of the partners of S. Jalan and Co., Advocates and Solicitors is not recorded in the partnership register maintained by the relevant department of this Court in the terms of the Original Side Rules of this Court. Thus, the concerned department is unable make over the proceeds of the said fixed deposit to the respondent after deducting the Registrar's Commission.;