the petitioner filed a Civil Revision under Article 227之机（implied）to challenge an order rejecting a prayer for stay against execution of a decree relating to delivery of possession of land. bench dismissed the revision finding no error in the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]
**
CO/18/2021
Dharam Raj …Petitioner Vs. Padma … Respondent Mr. P.C. Das, Advocate … for the petitioner [through virtual mode] Mr. D.C. Kabir, Advocate Mr. Ajith Prasad, Advocate … for the respondent
November 18, 2021 [SR] Item No.2
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order No.46 dated 29th September, 2021 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair in O.Exec.No.6 of 2014. It appears that the order was passed by the Trial Court in this matter on 31st July, 2014 which stood affirmed by the order of the First Appellate Court on 18th June, 2016.
According to the petitioner, an application for review has been filed in the year 2021 seeking review of the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court on 18th June, 2016. Apart from the submissions that the application for review will be rendered infructuous if the execution is allowed to proceed, no further point of law has been raised in the instant application.
The petitioner relies upon the report of the Tehsildar to show that he is not occupying any other land apart from Survey No.1048. It appears that the learned Trial Judge as well as the learned First Appellate Court has decided the matter on merits as well as on the point of law and has come to a specific finding which the opposite party intends to execute by filing the application for execution.
By an order dated 29th September, 2021, the prayer made by the petitioner for stay of the application for execution stood rejected.
The petitioner has been directed to deliver possession in terms of the decree.
The Court does not find any error in the order impugned herein. The Civil Revision application being CO/18/2021 stands dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual necessary formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision application should be allowed to stay the execution of the decree.
Whether error can be found in the impugned order rejecting the stay of execution
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dharam Raj
Padma
Amrita Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
