UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA vs ARUN KUMAR SAHOO & ANR.

Ms. Jyoti Sahoo appears in person to represent the opposite parties, who are her parents. The opposite party no. 1, Shri Arun Kumar Sahoo, is also

present in court. The petitioner is also represented in person by its concerned officials.

The opposite parties place a photocopy of a certified copy of order no. 20 dated September 05, 2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 1664 of 1993.

It is palpably evident from such order that notice was served on the judgment-debtor pursuant to order no. 15 dated January 13, 2017 passed by the

executing court.

When confronted with a copy of such order, the persons representing the petitioner miserably fail to give any justification as to why no copy of the

same was annexed to the revisional application and, even at the point of time when interim order was obtained on March 13, 2018 from this Court,

such order was suppressed.

It is indeed unfortunate that the University of Calcutta has stooped to such a nadir by suppressing a relevant order while obtaining an interim order

from this Court.

Since non-service of notice pursuant to the order dated January 13, 2017 of the executing court was the sole premise of passing of interim order on

March 13, 2018 by this Court, as well as the only flimsy ground on which the revisional application had any chance of surviving, the exposure of non-

existence of such ground takes away the justification for the survival of the revisional application itself.

It appears that by virtue of the impugned order dated December 05, 2017, the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, was inter alia directed to cause an

enquiry and submit a report about the alleged incident which happened on October 30, 2017 at the suit property and as to why police protection was

not provided to the court bailiff for execution of the writ of possession.

In view of the observations made hereinabove, there does not appear to be any plausible reason why the recalcitrant judgmentdebtor should be

permitted to perpetuate its avoidance of an eviction decree, passed long back by a competent court of law.

As such, C.O. No. 71 of 2018 is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite

parties within three weeks from date. Such costs are being imposed for the harassment suffered by the opposite parties as well as the suppression of

material facts on the part of the petitioner in obtaining an interim order from this Court.

The petitioner, being a public statutory body, is given liberty to fix responsibility of such suppression of fact, if necessary by internal inquiry, and to take

appropriate steps accordingly.