Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court setting aside the order passed by a learned Single Judge and directing the parties to place their respective stands before the Execution Court as regards the claim made by respondent No. 1 in respect of the properties where it claimed to be the tenant.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Appellant filed a suit in the court of IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of Rs. 20,91,319/- from respondent No. 2, a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ‘CPC’) inter alia with the following prayers:

(a) a decree for Rs. 20,91,319/-;

(b) and future interest at the agreed rate of 36% p.a. on the said amount from the date of the suit till the date of payment.

4. The claim of the plaintiff-appellant, according to it, arose on account of non payment of the aforesaid sum which was covered by a demand promissory note dated 20.3.1995 executed by aforesaid Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta in favour of the plaintiff and