High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 01 CAL CK 0127

M/s. East India Commercial Company Limited vs M/s. Captivate Marketing & Services Private Limited & Anr

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 11 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
CASE NUMBER
3853 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 349 words
1.

The petitioner has filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming its purportedly independent right in respect of the suit property. A decree for eviction was passed in favour of the opposite party no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2. The petitioner claims right to the suit property by virtue of a Deed of Assignment executed by the judgment-debtor/opposite party no. 2 in favour of the petitioner, in which the predecessor-in-interest of the decree-holder/opposite party no. 1 was a confirming party. In such application under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Code, registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 2106 of 2017, the petitioner prayed for stay of the connected execution case. Such prayer for stay being refused by the impugned order dated September 16, 2017, the present revision has been preferred.

2.

It appears from the relevant Deed of Assignment dated January 24, 1986 that the entire gamut of the rights of the petitioner flowing therefrom falls under the aegis of the judgmentdebtor/ opposite party no. 2. As such, there is little scope for the petitioner to stake independent claim to the suit property. Apparently, the rights of the petitioner are subservient to those of the judgment-debtor/opposite party no. 2. There does not appear to be a prima case for the petitioner to have obtained a stay of the execution case in question.

3.

In the above premise, the impugned order refusing stay cannot be faulted. Hence, C.O. No. 3853 of 2017 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs.

4.

However, it is made clear that all observations made in the present order and the order impugned before this Court are tentative and are restricted to the adjudication of the petitioner''s prayer for stay. The executing court will be free to adjudicate Miscellaneous Case No. 2106 of 2017 on its own merits without being influenced in any manner by these observations.

5.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.