Anju Dutta Vs Syed Firojuddin — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

Anju Dutta Vs Syed Firojuddin — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Kolkata Unit-II (Central) to dispose of Execution Application No. 36 of 2020 in the light of the Supreme Court's directions in Rahul S. Shah ((2021) 6 SCC 418) without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Kolkata Unit-II (Central) should be directed to dispose of the long-pending Execution Application No. 36 of 2020 (arising out of CC No. 259 of 2017) expeditiously.

Court's answer

C.O. 3171 of 2025 stands disposed of by directing the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Kolkata Unit-II (Central) to dispose of Execution Application No. 36 of 2020 in the light of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah (supra), without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

Key takeaways

In view of the order sought and proposed to be passed, no notice needed to be issued upon the opposite party; the petitioner's advocate is instead obliged to forward a copy of the application along with this order to the opposite party or their advocates before the learned District Commission.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Decree holder Smt. Anju Dutta filed C.O. 3171 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kolkata Unit-II (Central) to expeditiously dispose of Execution Application No. 36 of 2020 (arising out of CC No. 259 of 2017), pending since 2020. Invoking Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 418 - wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed (para 42 of the reports) that all courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily dispose of execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, extendable only by recording reasons in writing for such delay - Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. disposed of the petition by directing the District Commission to dispose of the execution application in the light of those directions without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. No notice was required upon the opposite party, Syed Firojuddin, the petitioner's counsel being obliged to forward a copy of the application and order; no order as to costs.

Sl.15 02.09.2025 Court No.6 BP

C.O. 3171 of 2025

Smt. Anju Dutta -versusSyed Firojuddin

Mr. Debasis Mitra Ms. Priya Chakraborty Mr. Subhajyoti Sain … for the petitioner

This application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is at the instance of the decree holder praying for a direction upon the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Kolkata Unit-II (Central) to dispose of the Execution Application No. 36 of 2020 arising out of CC No. 259 of 2017 expeditiously.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the execution case is pending from the year 2020. He places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors. reported at (2021) 6 SCC 418 in support of his contention that the execution proceedings are to be disposed of within six months.

In view of the order sought and proposed to be passed, there is no necessity to issue notice upon the opposite party. However, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner shall be obliged to forward a copy of this application along with this order upon the opposite party

2

or upon the learned advocates representing the opposite party before the learned District Commission.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah (supra) in paragraph 42 of the said reports observed that all Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

In view thereof, C.O. 3171 of 2025 stands disposed of by directing the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Kolkata Unit-II (Central) to dispose of the Execution Application No. 36 of 2020 in the light of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rahul S. Shah (supra) without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)