IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya C.O. 253 of 2025 Partha Sarathi Ganguly Vs.

M/s. Suburban Land & Building Society Pvt. Ltd.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Probal Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sayani Roy Chowdhury Ms. Debjani Ghosal Ms. B. Mondal ….. advocates For the Opposite Party : Dr. Chaples Bandyopadhyay Ms. Gargy Basu Ms. Anandamayee Dutta …advocates Reserved on : 20.03.2025 Judgment on : 06.05.2025 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. This application under 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgement debtor and is directed against an order dated December 18, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) in Title Execution Case no. 27 of 2024.

2. The Opposite Party herein filed a suit for declaration of title and that the opposite party has right to construct the boundary wall on the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from offering any resistance to the opposite party in the matter of raising boundary wall in the suit property and/or from disturbing the peaceful possession of the opposite party on the suit property and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to remove the bamboo poles lying in the suit property.

3. The said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated January 4, 2024.

The said decree was put into execution giving rise to Title Execution Case no. 27 of 2024.

4. The Opposite Party herein filed an application under Rule 208 of Civil Rules and Orders praying for police help. The petitioner herein filed a petition raising an objection as to the maintainability of the Title Execution case.

5. The learned Executing Court, by an order dated December 18, 2024 after deciding the issue of maintainability in favour of the opposite parties herein allowed the petition for police help.

6. Being aggrieved, by such order, the judgment debtor has approached this Court.

7. Mr. Mukherjee learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the Civil Revision Application contended that the opposite parties are trying to recover possession of an immovable property by executing a decree of mandatory injunction. He submitted that the opposite party herein did not pray for a decree for recovery of possession. By drawing the attention of the Court to the Tabular Statement/ the application for execution of decree Mr. Mukherjee contended that the opposite party herein is trying to recover possession of the suit property. He submitted that the execution application is not maintainable as the opposite party herein has sought for a direction upon the bailiff to deliver the vacant Khas possession of the decretal property in favour of the opposite parity. In support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee placed reliance upon a decision of a co-ordinate bench in the case of Gita Devi Marulia vs. Asansol Medical Centre reported at (2016) 1 CHN 469.

8. Per contra the learned advocate for the opposite party contended that the opposite party prayed for execution of the decree for mandatory injunction. He contended that the petitioner was directed to remove the bamboo poles from the suit property which implies after removal of the bamboo poles the possession is to be handed over to the opposite parties. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh reported at (1985) 2 SCC 332; Joseph Severance and Ors vs. Benny Mathew reported at AIR Online 2005 SC 1079 and Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust v.

Chandran, reported at (2017) 3 SCC 702.

9. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

10. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court at Alipore, by a judgment and decree dated January 4, 2024, decreed the Title Suit no. 360 of 2012 thereby declaring the right, title, interest and possession of the opposite party i