OD-1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

IA NO. GA/12/2025 WITH CS/245/1995

In

APD/120/2015

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

Vs

SANTANU MULLICK, EXECUTOR & ORS.

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Date: 26th November, 2025.

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Chanchal Kr. Dutta, Adv.

…for the applicant.

Mr. JishnuSaha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ishan Saha, Adv.

Mr. A. K. Awasthi, Adv.

Mr. Aishwarya Kr. Awasthi, Adv.

…for the respondents.

The Court: The present application has been filed seeking further six

months’ time to vacate the premises. The petitioner, being the judgment debtor, suffered a decree of eviction, which was affirmed in appeal by this court. While so affirming, on the prayer of the judgment debtor/petitioner, a

limited stay was granted till October 31, 2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner does not intend to prefer any appeal against the said judgment of the Appellate Court and wants to vacate the premises within six months.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the decree holders/opposite parties points out that already about three months’ time was granted to the judgment debtor to vacate the premises. However, at this juncture, the judgment debtor is now seeking to prolong the time further.

Upon a perusal of the averments made in the application, we find that the petitioner submits that they would deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the authorized owner, that is, the decree holder within a further period of six months.

However, it is evident from the letter written on behalf of the judgment debtor to the decree holder (which is annexed to the present application) that at present, a title suit is pending at the behest of the dealer under the judgment debtor, which is in actual physical possession of the suit property and has obtained an injunction in its independent suit against the judgment debtor. As such, even if we were to grant further time of six months to the judgment debtor to vacate the premises, the judgment debtor might not be in a position to vacate and deliver unencumbered possession to the decree holder in view of the subsistence of the injunction order as well as pendency of the suit at the behest of the dealer, which is allegedly in actual physical possession of the property. Hence, grant of further time to the judgment debtor would be a futile exercise and would unnecessarily prolong the agony of the decree holder.

In view of the above, GA/12/2025 is dismissed on contest, however, without any order as to costs.

Liberty is granted to the decree holder to immediately proceed with the connected execution case. It is expected that the executing court shall decide the said execution case as expeditiously as the business of the said court permits, in terms of the timelines granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various recent judgments.

KB AR (CR)