IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CRC 10 of 2025 (Re-numbered from CPAN 1463 of 2022)

in Money Execution Case No.12/2012 with IA NO.: CAN 1 of 2025 Abdul Aziz Vs.

Priyanka Singh, Collector, Purba Burdwan & Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Advocate Mr. Chandan Mondal, Advocate For the alleged contemnor : Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. Advocate General Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Government Pleader Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Ld. Jr. Govt. Advocate Mr. Debapriya Chatterjee, Advocate For the applicant in CAN 1 of 2025: Mr. Joydip Kar, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, Advocate Heard & Judgment on : May 21, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for addition of a party in a contempt proceedings.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant draws the attention of the Court to an order dated May 16, 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 26737/2025 directed against an order dated May 13, 2025 passed by us in the contempt petition.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant refers to the judgment and order dated October 5, 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5856 of 2021 and in particular paragraph 15 thereof.

4. Contempt petitioner approached the Court complaining of violation of two orders passed by the Executing Court. Both the orders were tested right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Contempt petitioner complained that, despite the orders passed by the Executing Court, payment in terms of the decree was not deposited before the Executing Court.

6. In the contempt petition, initially, we allowed sufficient time to the alleged contemnor to comply with the orders of the Executing Court. Order dated February 10, 2025 passed by us required the petitioner to serve the contempt petition upon the alleged contemnor. By our order dated February 18, 2025, we recorded that, the contemnor was represented.

7. Learned Advocate General represented the alleged contemnor on February 18, 2025 and February 21, 2025. On those dates, we requested the learned Advocate General to ensure that the orders passed by the learned Executing Court were complied with. Subsequently, orders dated April 7, 2025 and May 5, 2025 were passed.

8. On May 5, 2025 we recorded the submission on behalf of the contemnor that, the orders of the Executing Court would be complied with within seven days from the date of such order.

9. Finding that, the contemnor did not comply with the orders of the Executing Court, despite the submission to such effect being recorded on May 5, 2025, we were constrained to issue a Rule as against the contemnor on May 13, 2025. In such order as also in the Rule, we provided that, in the event the orders of the Executing Court were complied with, the contemnor need not be personally present on the returnable date.

10. On the returnable date, that is, May 19, 2025, we found that, the entirety of the orders of the Executing Court were not complied with that is to say that, the entirety of the interest money receivable were not deposited with the Executing Court. We, therefore, required the presence of the contemnor in Court. Contemnor appeared in Court and assured the Court that, requisite steps would be taken for compliance. On her prayer, the Rule was fixed today.

11. Today, learned Advocate appearing for the contemnor submits a report which be taken on record.

12. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, money receivable by the petitioner along with the interest calculated as on date, stands deposited with the Executing Court. He, therefore, submits that, the contempt Rule may be discharged subject to the consideration of the Court.

13. It appears from the report submitted by the contemnor that, apart from depositing the money with the jurisdictional