The executing court must assess a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm before issuing injunctions in execution proceedings, especially when jurisdictional issues, such as thika tenancy claims, arise.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. Despite service, none appeared for the Opposite Party No. 2.

2. In this revisional application, the petitioner/decree holder has assailed the order dated September 25, 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2^nd Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Misc. Case No. 211 of 2025. The Misc. case arose out of Title Execution Case No. 8 of 2025. The order had been challenged on the ground of perversity, arbitrariness and wrongful exercise of jurisdiction. By the order impugned, the learned executing Court had granted an ex parte ad interim order of injunction, restraining the decree holder from creating any disturbance in the possession of the opposite party no. 1 over the decretal property. The order was passed in an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 had filed a Misc. Case in the execution proceeding under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 101 and 103 read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. It was urged by Mr. Thaker, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the application was not maintainable at the instance of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party no. 1 was the dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), the opposite party no. 2 herein, and was occupying the premises in question by virtue of a dealership agreement dated May 17, 1985. A leave and licence was granted to the opposite party no. 1, to run the petrol pump from the said suit premises. The dealership agreement categorically mentioned that the licensee could use the said premises and the outfit, for the sole and exclusive purpose of storing, selling and handling the products purchased by the dealer from IOCL during the duration of the agreement. The terms and conditions of the dealership agreement specifically mentioned that, the dealer would not have any right, title or interest either in the premises or in the outfit and shall not be entitled to claim the right of lessee, sub-lessee or tenant. That the dealer shall not be deemed to be in exclusive possession of the premises and will not have an independent right over the property.

4. The case run by the petitioner was that, in spite of such specific terms in the dealership agreement, the learned court treated the dealer as a third party, claiming an independent right to remain in the property. The petitioner purchased the suit premises by a registered deed of conveyance dated December 17, 2014 and substituted itself as plaintiff in the suit for eviction instituted by the erstwhile owners against the opposite party No. 2. The Title Suit No. 39 of 2000 was decreed on November 20, 2024 against the Opposite Party No. 2, directing the said party to vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the suit premises to the petitioner, after removing the installations and erections made thereon and underneath the surface, by restoring the same to its original state and situation, within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of the decree. As the Opposite Party No. 2 failed to comply with the decree, the petitioner filed Title Execution No. 8 of 2025 for execution of the decree.

5. On and about January 16, 2025, the Opp