D/L.4 & 5.

January 19, 2026.

.

MNS FMA No. 1347 of 2025 +

CAN 1 of 2025 Rajat Nandi Vs.

Srabani Ghosh (Paul)

with FAT 358 of 2025 +

CAN 1 of 2025 +

CAN 2 of 2025 +

CAN 3 of 2025 Rajat Nandi Vs.

Srabani Ghosh Paul and another Mr. Prantick Ghosh, Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar, Mr. Sourav Gupta … for the appellant.

Mr. Souradipta Banerjee, Mr. Rudranil Mitra, Mrs. Fatima Hassan …for the respondent no. 1.

1. The affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.

2. At the outset, an objection as to maintainability of the First Miscellaneous Appeal is raised by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 on the ground that by its very nature, the miscellaneous case under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code), under which provision the case was filed and from which the appeal arises, is incapable of valuation.

3. The impugned order having been passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), it is submitted that this Court does not have pecuniary determination to take up the matter but the appeal ought to have been filed before the concerned District Judge.

4. However, although it is true that under the Civil Rules and Orders framed by this Court, an application under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code is registered as a miscellaneous case, the valuation of the suit in connection with which the said application filed is to be taken as the parameter for determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, since the court taking up an appeal against a deemed decree passed in an execution case has to be the same as the court of appeal against the decree passed in the principal suit itself, in order to maintain parity in the appellate hierarchy.

5. Going by the said standard, since the suit was valued above the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, it is this Court which has determination, in the pecuniary sense, to entertain the appeal.

6. Accordingly, the objection as to maintainability of the present appeal on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is turned down and the appeal is taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Re: FMA 1347 of 2025.

7. The first miscellaneous appeal, bearing FMA No. 1347 of 2025, has been preferred against a deemed decree passed on the application filed by the appellant, an admitted purchaser from the judgment-debtor, under Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby such application was dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to argue on the merits of the case.

9. However, in view of a challenge within the contemplation of Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code being maintainable only at the instance of a third party-judgment resistor, the present appellant, who claims by purchase through the judgment debtor did not have locus standi to maintain such an application.

10. It is well-settled that persons claiming through the judgment-debtors come within the same bracket as the judgment-debtors themselves, insofar as the execution case is concerned, and are not entitled to maintain an application under Order XXI Rule 97 or 99 of the Code.

11. Accordingly, the application by the appellant before the executing court, effectively under Order XXI Rule 99, was not at all maintainable at the outset.

12. Hence, the observations on merits arrived at by the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned deemed decree were erroneous ex facie, since in view of the application itself not being maintainable, the executing court was not empowered to enter into the merits of the case at all.

13. Accordingly, although we hereby observe that the findings on merits entered into by the executing court while passing the impugned deemed decree are not valid in the eye of law, at the same time, the conclusion arrived at in dismissing the application was justified, thereby precluding us from interfering with the impugned deemed decree.

14. Accordingly, FMA No. 1347 of 2025 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code, thereby affirming the imp