OD - 4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EC/634/2018 IA NO: GA/1/2021, GA/2/2022 PROBIR KUMAR DAS VS PRADIP KUMAR DAS BEFORE :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN th Date : 27 February, 2025 Appearance :

Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Adv.

Mr.Sourav Mondal, Adv.

…for the decree-holder.

Mr. Ayan Dutta, Adv.

..for the judgment-debtor Re : GA/2/2022

1. This is an application at the instance of the judgment-debtor wherein a prayer has been made for dismissal of the instant execution case as not maintainable along with other ancillary reliefs.

2. At the very outset, learned advocate for the decree holder submits before this Court that the decree holder does not intend to file any affidavit in opposition against GA 2 of 2022. However, learned advocate appearing for the decree- holder submits that he wants to raise verbal objection against the instant application.

3. In support of the instant application being GA 2 of 2022 learned advocate for the decree holder at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the annexure A to the instant application. Attention of this Court is drawn to various clauses of the terms of settlement which admittedly form part of the compromise decree, which is sought to be executed by filing the instant execution case. Attention of this Court is drawn to clauses 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(j) of the said terms of settlement.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the judgement debtor that from the terms of settlement as referred to above it is revealed that time has not matured for putting the decree into execution inasmuch as, as per terms of the said settlement, the judgement debtor had given no notice expressing his intention to make payment as per terms of the compromise decree and to take possession of the undivided half share of the decretal property being premises no. 43/1A, Ram Dulal Sarkar Street, Kolkata 700 006, P.S. Girish Park. Attention of this Court is drawn to clause 1(j) of the said terms of settlement. It is submitted that the said clause of the said compromise decree specifies regarding default interest on the failure of the judgment debtor to pay the decretal sum on the specified date. However, the date of actual payment has not been mentioned in the said clause of the terms of settlement.

5. Learned Advocate for the judgement debtor further submits that this Court being the executing court cannot go behind the decree and, thus, from the terms of the settlement of the said compromise decree this Court ought not to proceed with the instant execution case because of the lacunae as pointed out in course of his argument.

6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the decree holder submits before this Court that the instant application has got no merit at all. It is submitted by him that the terms of settlement of the said compromise decree are very clear and unambiguous. It is further contended by him that decree holder is ready and willing to handover the undivided half portion of the decretal property upon execution of a registered deed of conveyance in favour of the judgment debtor on receipt of the decretal amount together with interest accrued thereon in terms of the settlement as recorded in the compromise decree.

7. In course of his reply, learned advocate for the judgment debtor submits before this Court that in support of his contention he intends to place some reported/unreported decisions and for which he needs accommodation.

8. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court, this Court considers that the last prayer as made by the learned advocate for the judgement debtor for accommodation cannot be conceded with and the same is disallowed.

9. On consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned advocates for the contending parties, it reveals to this Court that the terms of settlement of the said compromise decree which is sought to be executed by filing the instant execution case is