Subrata Talukdar, J.

In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order impugned dated 4th June, 2013 passed by the Ld. 3rd Civil Court (Junior Division) at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 11974 of 2013 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 18111 of 2011 in the matter of Ananya Dalal Vs. Mira Dalal & Ors.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

a) That on 4th June, 2013 the petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rules 97 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) read with Section 151 CPC in respect of an execution proceeding being Title Execution Case No. 18111 of 2011 arising out of Title Suit No. 104 of 2006 and pending before the Ld. Civil Court (Junior Division) at Alipore.

b) The petitioner claims to be in adverse possession of the suit premises no. 2/1, Nokuleswar Bhattacharjee Lane, P.S.-Tollygunge, Kol-700026. According to the petitioner, the complainant and the present OP 4, one Pradip Dalal, were married in the year 1990 at the end of a courtship period. The marriage between the petitioner and the OP 4 was not accepted by the Opposite Parties even after the birth of their first son on 10th September, 1992. Due to the ill-treatment of the OPs, who were the family members of the OP4, the petitioner was compelled to live at her flat in 12/1/1A, Monoharpukur Road, Kol-26. The petitioner thereafter gave birth to a second child on 1st September, 1994 and the petitioner alleges that even after the birth of the second child her husband, the OP4, did not care to visit either his wife or his two children.

c) Since the petitioner was not accepted at her matrimonial house at 2/1, Nakuleswar Bhattacharjee Lane, Kol-700026 on 1st October, 1994 the petitioner along with the help of her father and local people forcefully took possession of the matrimonial house by ousting the OPs from the said house.

d) Thereafter the petitioner claims to have been residing in the said premises along with her father and two sons on the ground floor and has given tenancy of the first floor on a monthly basis.

e) Being in such possession of the suit premises the petitioner obtained knowledge of the fact that the OPs have obtained a decree in Title Suit No. 104 of 2006 and, on the basis of such decree, which the petitioner claims to be collusive, execution proceedings have been initiated by the OPs to dispossess the petitioner from the suit premises. The petitioner has been resisting such dispossession on the ground that she is in adverse possession of the same by making some additional construction in the suit premises.

f) It is the further claim of the petitioner that she is not bound by any decree since such decree was passed behind her back and in favour of the OPs No. 7 to 9. Since the petitioner is not bound by any decree she cannot be bound by any execution proceeding arising out of such decree and, therefore for adjudication of her rights the petitioner has filed an application under Order 21 Rules 97 & 101 read with Section 151 CPC.

g) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that inspite of pendency of her application under Order 21 Rules 97 & 101 read with Section 151 CPC being Misc. Case No. 11974 of 2013 before the Ld. 3rd Civil Court (Junior Division) at Alipore, no interim relief was granted to her and the execution proceeding was allowed to continue.

Shri Anit Kumar Rakshit, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to have her rights independently adjudicated in her application filed under Order 21 Rules 97 & 101 read with Section 151 CPC. In the event the decree is allowed to be executed during the pendency of Misc. Case No. 11974 of 2013, the petitioner shall suffer grave prejudice.

Shri Rakshit submits that a direction may be given by this Court to the Ld. Trial Court to dispose of Misc. Case No. 11974 of 2013 within a specified period prior to proceeding with the execution case.

Per contra, Shri Amit