THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA C.R.P.No.2168 of 2025

ORDER:

No one appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 despite service of Notice.

2. The petitioner before this Court is the Judgment-debtor No.2 in the Execution Petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4/Decree- holders. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order by which the petitioner’s Application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.

3. This Court does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition, since the Trial Court has indicated sufficient reasons for dismissing the petitioner’s E.A. The reasons stated in the impugned order are as follows.

4. The petitioner’s E.A. was filed after the Suit was decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal from the decree however, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner when the plaintiffs proceeded to execute the decree.

5. The petitioner was a party to the Suit and contested the Suit on merits. However, despite such participation and being accorded full hearing, the petitioner did not raise any dispute with regar