T.A.

03/03
The record is put up by petition along with the petition under order 41 rule 5 of
CPC read with section 151 of CPC praying for stay of the title execution case being no.
06/12 pending in the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Ranaghat.
Heard Ld. Advocate for the appellant. The put up petition is considered and
allowed. Heard Ld. Advocate for the appellant over the petition under order 41 rule 5 of
CPC, considered.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the title execution case no. 06/12 pending before the Court of Ld. Civil Judge,
Junior Division, 2nd Court, Ranaghat is stayed till the disposal of this Title Appeal.
Let the copy of the order be sent to the Ld. Court below.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),
Ranaghat, Nadia.

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),

Ranaghat, Nadia.

T.A. 18/12
Order No. 4 dated 02.01.13.
The record is put up by petition along with the petition praying for stay of
proceedings of Title Execution case no. 09/12.
Vokalatnama is filed by advocate Dipayan Saha. Let the same be kept with the
record.
Heard Ld. Advocate for the appellant. The put up petiton is allowed. Heard Ld.
Advocate over the stay petition. Perused. On perusal I find that appellant/herein who was
the defendant in T/S no. 45/08 out of which this appeal arose, filed this appeal challanging
the judgement and decree of the Ld. Lower Court, passed in the above said T.S.
On perusal of the information slip filed by the appellant, I find that Title Execution
case being no. 09/12 has been filed for execution of the decree passed in Title Suit 45/08.
As appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree of the Ld. Trial Court in
T.S 45/08, I am of the opinion that the stay prayed for by the appellant should be allowed.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that on proceedings of Title Execution no. 09/12 be stayed till the disposal of this
appeal, i.e. Title Appeal 18/12.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),
Ranaghat, Nadia.

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),

Ranaghat, Nadia.

T.A. 17/12
Order No.

dated 02.01.13.
The record is put up by petition along with the petition praying for stay of

proceedings of Title Execution case no. 08/12.

Vokalatnama is filed by advocate Dipayan Saha. Let the same be kept with the
record.
Heard Ld. Advocate for the appellant. The put up petiton is allowed. Heard Ld.
Advocate over the stay petition. Perused. On perusal I find that appellant/herein who was
the defendant in T/S no. 44/08 out of which this appeal arose, filed this appeal challanging
the judgement and decree of the Ld. Lower Court, passed in the above said T.S.
On perusal of the information slip filed by the appellant, I find that Title Execution
case being no. 08/12 has been filed for execution of the decree passed in Title Suit 44/08.
As appeal has been preferred against the judgement and decree of the Ld. Trial Court in
T.S 44/08, I am of the opinion that the stay prayed for by the appellant should be allowed.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that on proceedings of Title Execution no. 08/12 be stayed till the disposal of this
appeal, i.e. Title Appeal 17/12.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),
Ranaghat, Nadia.

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),

Ranaghat, Nadia.

T.A. - 20/12
Appellant files Hazira through Ld. Advocate.
Respondent files Hazira through Ld. Advocate.
Respondent files W/O against the petition under order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with
section 151 of CPC.
Today is fix for hearing of the petition under order 39 rule 1 read with section 151
of CPC.
Heard both sides. On perusal of the petition I find that the appellant had prayed for
injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction on 'Ka' and 'Kha'
scheduled of the suit property and or cut down any trees till the disposal of this appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the defendant submitted that the appellant had filed a title suit
being no. 60/06 for declaration, injunction and recovery of 'Khas' possession. The suit was
dismissed on contest. Thus the appellant did not have any locus standi to file this petition.
He further submitted that as the title suit out of which this appeal arose was dismissed.
Thus the appellant had no right, title and interest over the suit property as such the
respondents has started making construction over their own property. The appellant did not
have any prime-facie case thus the petition was liable to be rejected.
Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant on the other hand submitted that if the
defendants/respondents were not restrained by an order of injunction from raising
construction over the suit property and from cutting down the trees before the disposal of
this appeal the appellant will suffer irreparable loss and injury and the very reason of
filling this appeal would be infructuous. Further of multiplicity of proceedings may arise
thus the prayer of injunction be allowed.
Considered submission of both sides. I am of the opinion that though the title suit
had been dismissed but as this appeal has been filed against the decree of the Trial Court
there should be an order of injunction till the disposal of this appeal, otherwise there is a
chance of multiplicity of proceedings.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that both the appellant and the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo as
regards the present possession and construction over the suit property till the disposal of
this appeal.
Contd................

Accordingly the petition under order 39 rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of CPC
is dispoosed off on contest, without cost.
Fix .............................. for hearing of the appeal of LCR.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),
Ranaghat, Nadia.

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.),

Ranaghat, Nadia.