Partly allowed

Tapan Kr. Bhowmik v. Ms Chapala Bircks Industry

Tripura HC17 Aug 2017CRP/36/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition, the Supreme Court set aside an order by the Civil Judge declining to execute a decree for ₹7,50,580. The Court held that the Civil Judge was overcautious, misapprehending the risk of sub judice complications, and failed to exercise jurisdiction to proceed with the execution, which it remanded for disposal without delay.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 02-05-2017 setting aside is set aside; the executing court is directed to proceed with and dispose of the execution proceeding without delay.

Tapan Kr. Bhowmik Vs Ms Chapala Bircks Industry — Execution and Attachment | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

CRP NO.36 of 2017

¶2

B E F O R E THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶3

Present : For the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Deb, Sr. Advocate. Mr. S. Datta, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. D.K. Biswas, Advocate. Ms. A. Chakraborty, Advocate. 17.08.2017

¶4

Heard Mr. S.K. Deb, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Datta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶5

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02-05-2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura in Execution(M) No.01 of 2017 declining to execute that part of the decree awarding a sum of `7,50,580/along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of this suit to the petitioner.

¶6

From the judgment under appeal before the appellate court, it is seen that the decretal amount is 7,50,580/- though the relief claimed was to the order of 15,27,229/-. Admittedly, no appeal or cross objection has been preferred by the respondents against the judgment partly decreeing the suit with the amount indicated above. In my opinion, the executing

¶7

CRP NO.36 of 2017 Page 1 of 3

¶8

court appears to be overcautious in its approach; the fact that the judgment partly decreed the suit to the tune of ₹7,50,580/-, appears to have been overlooked or not properly appreciated.

¶9

It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that as the matter is sub judice , in case the appellate court interfered with the judgment in question; complication is likely to arise if the decree partly granted is already executed should the appeal be allowed subsequently. In my opinion, the apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondent is clearly misconceived. The question of the appellate court setting aside that part of the decree, the execution whereof is sought for, and is not under challenge does not and will not arise; the appellate court is only examining the legality of that part of the judgment with which petitioner is aggrieved and not against that part of the judgment partly decreeing the suit. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), in my considered view, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in declining to proceed with the execution proceeding initiated by the petitioner. This calls for the interference of this Court.

¶10

Consequently, the impugned order dated 02-052017 is set aside. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dharmanagar, North Tripura shall now

¶11

CRP NO.36 of 2017 Page 2 of 3

¶12

proceed with the execution proceeding and dispose of the same in accordance with law without unnecessary delay.

¶13

The revision petition is disposed of in the

¶14

manner and to the extent indicated above.

¶15

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

Dipesh

¶17

CRP NO.36 of 2017 Page 3 of 3

Tapan Kr. Bhowmik v. Ms Chapala Bircks Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Kr. Bhowmik v. Ms Chapala Bircks Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Partha Debbarma Vs Puja Majumder

Adhir Ch. Das and Anr. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rajesh Debnath Vs State of Tripura

Kanchanthung Halam and Anr. Vs Mallika Das and Ors.

Renu Bala Das - Legal Heirs of Deceased Vs Tutan DEBand Anr.

Divisional Manager Of N.i.c. Ltd. Vs Mangali Muda @ Benjuya And 2 Ors.