Point of Law: The suggestion to legislature is that a litigant who has succeeded must be compensated by one who has lost - Suggestion to the legislature is to formulate a mechanism that anyone who initiates and continues a litigation senselessly pays for the same. It is suggested that legislature should consider the introduction of a “Code of Compulsory Costs”.

JUDGMENT :

Biswajit Basu, J.

1. The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Order No. 4 dated February 24, 2020 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore District-24 Parganas (South) in P.P. Appeal No. 5 of 2020 arising out of the order dated February 04, 2020 passed by the Estate Officer in an eviction proceeding initiated by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1971’ in short).

2. The appeal Court below by the order impugned has passed an ex parte ad interim order of stay of all further proceedings of the said eviction proceeding till March 12, 2020; the said order was subsequently extended.

3. Mr. Sanjib Mal, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the Estate Officer by the order dated February 04, 2020 has dismissed an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 to the said eviction proceeding, the opposite party no. 1 herein, for expunging his name from the said eviction proceeding. The said order not being an order passed under any of the provisions specified under Section 9 of the said Act of 1971, the appeal from the said order is not maintainable as such the appeal Court below has grossly acted with material irregularity in staying all further proceedings of the eviction proceeding in aid of the said appeal. He further submits that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are in unauthorised occupation of the public premises described under Schedule ‘B’ appended to the eviction petition and to run aneatery business under the name and style ‘Drive-In Snacks’, they have put in unauthorised construction on the said property. He further submits that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are abusing the process of law to any extent to delay the disposal of the eviction proceeding. Mr. Mal referring to the records contends that similar type of applications filed by the said opposite parties for similar relief were dismissed earlier by the Estate Officer and the orders of the Estate Officer were affirmed in revision by the High Court.

4. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 submits that the present application filed by his client is not only for the purpose of expunging his name from the eviction proceeding but also for the determination of the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer over the connected eviction proceeding, therefore, the allegation of Mr. Mal that earlier applications of his client was for similar relief is not correct.

5. Mr. Basu submits that an appeal is provided against every order of the Estate Officer under Section 9 of the said Act of 1971, therefore, he disputes the contention of Mr. Mal that the order of the Estate Officer dated February 04, 2020is not open to appeal under the said provision of the said Act of 1971, to buttress his such argument, he places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs. NANDINI J. AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 15 SCC 356, in the case of THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD vs. GOKAL CHAND reported in AIR 1967 SC 799 and a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of DULI CHAND SHREELAL AND ANOTHER vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS reported in 2017 SCC ONLINE CAL 3418.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials-on-record.

6. The petitioner initiated the proceeding under Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 way back in the year 2012. The Estate Officer by the order dated September 25, 2013 had disposed of the earlier application of the opposite party no. 1 for expunging his name from the eviction proceeding with the following observations :-

“I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have also gone through the Application filed by Opponent No. 2 and though I am prima-facie of the view that the statutory notice under section 4 & 7 of the said Act has been serve