JUDGMENT : Debi Prosad Dey, J. The petitioner(Sri Ganesh Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd.) the company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 27, Nityadhan Mukherjee Road, Howrah-711101) being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order dated 29th May, 2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court at Howrah in title suit no.114 of 2011(wherein and whereby learned Judge has rejected the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on amongst other grounds that learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the true perspective of the application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and thereby has failed to direct the opposite parties to deposit a sum of Rs.26,34,600/-collected from various occupiers of the suit property since 2005, in terms of the prayer of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of a property situated at holding No. 27, Nityadhan Mukherjee Road, Howrah. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession of the suit property against B. R. Harman & Mohata(India) Pvt. Ltd., the erst while tenant and the said suit subsequently was transferred to this Hon’ble High Court and registered as E.O.S. No. 1/1983. The said suit along with other suits being the CS No. 546 of 1976, CS No.87 of 1979, CS No.746 of 1981 and E.O.S. No.3 of 1978 was heard analogously by this Hon’ble High Court and the High Court by a judgment and decree dated 20th January, 2003decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. This Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass decree to the effect that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises and the petitioner is entitled to get vacant possession of the suit premises by evicting tenant that is B.R. Harman & Mohata (India) Pvt. Ltd. Including its subtenant therefrom. 3. The petitioner thereafter made an application before this Hon’ble High Court for execution of the aforesaid decree passed by this Hon’ble Court and the said application for execution was registered as E.C. No.383 of 2011. By an order dated 29th September, 2011 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the above execution case by transferring the same to the Court of Learned District Judge, Howrah for execution. 4. By an order dated 29th September, 2011 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the above execution case by transferring the same to the Court of Learned District Judge, Howrah for execution. 4. However, during the pendency of the title execution case the petitioner got khas possession of same portions of the suit property from various occupiers. The petitioner intended to develop the suit property and accordingly entered into a development agreement of the suit property with OP No.1. An agreement for development of such property was executed in between the petitioner and OP No.1 on 29th June, 2003 on certain terms embodied in the said development agreement. In terms of such agreement a power of attorney was granted in favour of opposite party No.2 and 4, who are the directors of opposite party No.1, for collection of rents etc. from various occupiers. Subsequently in view of the illegal, wrongful and capricious actions as well as complete failure on their part to perform their obligation in terms of the said development agreement, the petitioner cancelled and terminated the said development agreement and further revoked the power of attorney executed in favour of the opposite party No.2 and 4 by a deed of revocation, which was executed and registered on 4th October, 2010 and upon revocation of power of attorney, the same was duly communicated to the opposite party No.1 company and also published a notification to that effect in the newspaper. The further case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid agreement cannot be enforced in law and accordingly the opposite parties cannot enforce such agreement in law. 5. The opposite party No.1 however filed a suit for specific performance of the said development agreement on the basis of various false and baseless allegations, stating inter-alia that the petitioner offered to sale the said property to the plaintiff/opposite party No.1 and the said suit was registered as title suit No.114/2011 pending before the learned first Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Howrah. The petitioner duly appeared in the said suit and filed written statement praying for dismissal of the suit. The opposite parties, despite cancellation of the development agreement and revocation of the power of attorney, have been realizing the occupation charges from various occupiers in the suit property and thereby they have collected Rs.26,34,600/- till date. The petitioner duly appeared in the said suit and filed written statement praying for dismissal of the suit. The opposite parties, despite cancellation of the development agreement and revocation of the power of attorney, have been realizing the occupation charges from various occupiers in the suit property and thereby they have collected Rs.26,34,600/- till date. The petitioner accordingly filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for a direction to the effect that the opposite party No.1 be directed to deposit the said sum of money to the tune of Rs.26.34.600/- in Court. 6. The OP No.1 duly contested the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court followed by filing written objection. The specific case of OP No.1 is that the petitioner had executed an agreement for sale of property in favour of OP No.1 against consideration of Rs.30 lakhs. 7. Secondly, the OP No.1 has already paid Rs.1 Lakh in terms of the said agreement and the petitioner is only entitled to get the balance amount to the tune of Rs.29 Lakhs only. Save and except the balance amount to the tune of Rs.29 Lakhs the petitioner has had no authority to cancel or terminate the agreement for sale, and accordingly learned trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the said application under Section 151 of CPC. 8. Learned senior Advocate Mr. Utpal Bose appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is absolute owner of the property and the agreement in question relates to the development of the suit property and the said agreement was never executed for sale of the suit property. Mr. Bose further contended that the petitioner has already cancelled the said agreement and the power of attorney of opposite party No.2 and 4 and therefore the opposite parties have had no valid title over the suit property. Mr. Bose referred pare 9 of the said agreement in order to show that the authority of collection of rent was given on the strength of power of attorney executed by the petitioner but the said power of attorney has been cancelled/revoked by the petitioner and therefore opposite party No.2 and 4 have had no authority to collect any rent from any of the occupier in absence of any authority from rightful owner of the property. Mr. Mr. Bose further contended that mere filing of a suit for specific performance of contract would not entitle the opposite parties to claim title over the property or to collect rent from the occupiers since the reliefs prayed for in a suit for specific performance of contract are yet to be decided by the Court. Mr. Bose further contended that the jurisdiction to decide specific performance of contract being discretionary in nature, the Court must look into the income arising out of the property during the pendency of the suit and therefore learned trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction by rejecting the application under Section 151 CPC. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 and 4 have been collecting rent illegally without having any authority and accordingly, the Court ought to have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC for ascertaining as to the actual amount of rents collected by the opposite parties. 9. Learned senior Advocate Mr. Haradhan Banerjee appearing on behalf of the opposite parties vehemently contended that the application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rightly rejected by learned trial Court since the prayers containing in the application under Section 151 of the CPC have had no bearing in the merit of the suit under reference and as such learned trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the such application. 10. Mr. Banerjee further contended that the petitioner did not pray for any counter claim or any sort of claim in the written statement and therefore the application under Section 151 of CPC for depositing the rent collected by the opposite parties, is not maintainable in law. 11. Mr. Banerjee also contended that the Court cannot go beyond the scope of the suit and such application under Section 151 of CPC has had no bearing in the suit under reference. It is further submitted that in fact the petitioner has intended to transfer the suit property in favour of the opposite party against the consideration of Rs.30 Lakhs only and out of which, a sum of Rs.1 Lakh has already been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has had no authority to ask for any accounts with regard to the collection of rents by the opposite parties and accordingly learned trial Court was justified in rejecting such claim of the petitioner. 12. Therefore, the petitioner has had no authority to ask for any accounts with regard to the collection of rents by the opposite parties and accordingly learned trial Court was justified in rejecting such claim of the petitioner. 12. Learned trial Court, while rejecting the application under Section 151 of CPC, has specifically observed that any decision with regard application under Section 151 CPC would tantamount to prejudge the issue and accordingly it would not be proper to decide such matter when the suit is ready for disposal. I would like to mention here that the agreement between the parties with regard to the development of the suit property has had telling effect in deciding the actual dispute between the parties. 13. The copy of such agreement has been handed over to this Court at the time of argument by learned Advocate for his opposite parties. Para 9 of the said argument reveals that the developer (the opposite party No.1), has been authorized to deal with the tenant on the strength of a general power of attorney to be executed by the petitioner. 14. Admittedly, the opposite parties have been authorized to deal with the tenants of the suit property on the strength of the power of attorney to be executed by the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically stated that such power of attorney has been cancelled and revoked by the petitioner. Therefore after revocation of such power of attorney, the authority of the opposite party to collect rent from the tenants or to deal with the tenants becomes questionable. 15. Para 5 of the said agreement further reveals that the agreement shall not be treated as partnership between the owner and the developer (opposite party) or an agreement for sale of the said plot by the owner to the developer. 16. It is therefore crystal clear from such averment (para 5) that the agreement in question is not an agreement for sale. 17. Para 10 of the said agreement may be reproduced below for appreciation of the submission made by learned Advocate for the opposite party. 16. It is therefore crystal clear from such averment (para 5) that the agreement in question is not an agreement for sale. 17. Para 10 of the said agreement may be reproduced below for appreciation of the submission made by learned Advocate for the opposite party. “The owner of the first part save and except receipt of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Lac Only) from the development as stated above shall not make any claim or demand whatsoever arising out of the property developed by the Developer mentioned in Schedule “A” under and all the income and/or profits derived out of the sale proceeds of the Flat or Flats, Transferred and sold and/or Let-out to the intending purchaser or purchasers or the tenants shall be received and enjoyed by the Developer.” 18. It is therefore apparent from para 10 of the agreement that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.30 Lakhs only with regard to the property to be developed by the opposite party and that the agreement does not relate to the existing tenants or occupiers of the suit property. 19. The agreement in question was executed on 29th Day of June, 2003 between the petitioner and opposite party No.1 yet the property has not been developed by the opposite party till date. On the contrary the opposite party is busy in realizing rents from the existing tenants without taking any steps towards the execution of the said agreement. Though time is not the essence of the contract under reference yet it has to be executed within reasonable period of time. The opposite party cannot take advantage of the said contract for years together and if he fails to execute such contract within a specific period of time, the said contract may not be given effect to for not being executed within a reasonable period of time. Learned Advocate Mr. Banerjee has referred the following decisions in support of his contention that the application under Section 151 of CPC is not applicable in given facts and circumstances of this case. i. AIR 1977 Cal 197 (Kamal Kumar Bose vs. Smt Dey and Ors.) ii. AIR 1961 SC 218 (Padam Sen & Anr. Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh) iii. AIR 1983 SC 1272 (Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs. United Industrial bank Limited and Ors.). i. AIR 1977 Cal 197 (Kamal Kumar Bose vs. Smt Dey and Ors.) ii. AIR 1961 SC 218 (Padam Sen & Anr. Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh) iii. AIR 1983 SC 1272 (Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs. United Industrial bank Limited and Ors.). In AIR 1977 Cal 197 (Kamal Kumar Bose vs. Smt Dey and Ors.) the Division of Bench of our High Court has observed that the powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be extended to defeat any provision of law or a substantive right conferred by law. In AIR 1961 SC 218 (Padam Sen & Anr. Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh) the Apex Court has obser5ved that the Court has had no inherent power to override the substantive rights, which a litigant possesses. 20. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed to account for/ to intimate the Court, about the rents collected by the opposite parties since the execution of the agreement. 21. The learned trial Court has had no occasion to curtail any substantive right of the parties to the suit, in entertaining the application under Section 151 of the CPC and learned trial Court would not have encroached upon any substantive right of the litigants, while deciding the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on merit. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions are in no way applicable in the context of the given facts and circumstances of this case. The decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 1272 (Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs. United Industrial bank Limited and Ors.) relates to the embargo in granting injunction in terms of Section 41(b) of Specific Relief Act and accordingly the said decision is not at all applicable in the present case. 22. Mr. Banerjee has also referred another decision reported in AIR 1966 Cal 603 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sailendra Nath Chakraborty Thakur). The plaintiff being a telegraphic signaler of Eastern Railway of the Howrah Division was transferred and posted at Sahebgunj but the plaintiff did not report to his duties at Belur and also did not resume his duties at Sahebgunj. The salary of the petitioner was withheld. Vs. Sailendra Nath Chakraborty Thakur). The plaintiff being a telegraphic signaler of Eastern Railway of the Howrah Division was transferred and posted at Sahebgunj but the plaintiff did not report to his duties at Belur and also did not resume his duties at Sahebgunj. The salary of the petitioner was withheld. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 151 CPC with a prayer for payments of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the suit and the said petition was rejected on the ground that right to get subsistence allowance not being related to matter of procedure, no order could be made under Section 151 of CPC. The said decision also appears to be not applicable in the context of the given facts and circumstances of this case. 23. On the contrary the power of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been elaborately discussed by our Apex Court in the decision reported in (2003) 6 SCC (Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors.) 24. It may be specifically stated here that the instant application is not being disposed of under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the petition is being considered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives ample jurisdiction to the Court to look into the matter under supervisory capacity. 25. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act clearly provides that the jurisdiction of Civil Court in deciding any matter of specific performance is discretionary. The Court is not at all bound to grant such relief. The Court must consider whether such agreement has given any unfair advantage to the opposite party or the terms of such agreement are causing any undue hardship to the petitioner or that the agreement in question is equitable one. 26. Admittedly, the opposite parties have realized/collected rents of the suit premises on the strength of power of attorney. The authority of the opposite party in realization of rents till the date of revocation of such power of attorney remains unquestionable. However, after revocation of such power of attorney, opposite party No.2 and 4 automatically have lost their authority towards collection of rents from the suit property on the strength of such power of attorney. The authority of the opposite party in realization of rents till the date of revocation of such power of attorney remains unquestionable. However, after revocation of such power of attorney, opposite party No.2 and 4 automatically have lost their authority towards collection of rents from the suit property on the strength of such power of attorney. There is no order from competent Court to authorize the opposite party No.2 and 4 for collection of such rent during the pendency of the suit. On the contrary, without returning the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00000/-, the petitioner cannot revoke/terminate the agreement unilaterally. The unilateral revocation/termination of the agreement under reference also becomes questionable for not returning the amount to the tune of Rs.1,00000/-, which was received by the petitioner at the time of execution of such agreement. Therefore, such matters ought to have been considered at the time of deciding the ultimate relief by the Court. On that score, learned trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application at the outset but the matter should have been left open for decision along with the main issues of the suit. 27. It is apparent from the order passed by learned trial Judge that the suit is ready for preemptory hearing. Therefore the learned trial Court has had ample scope/authority to decide the prayer as contained in the application under Section 151 of the CPC at the time of final disposal of the suit. Though I have mentioned some paragraphs of the agreement under reference in the forgoing paragraphs yet I would like to make it clear that the agreement should be considered as a whole and not on piecemeal basis with regard to any paragraph of such agreement. In the premises set forth above, the order dated 29th May, 2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Howrah in title suit no.114 of 2011 in respect of the application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is set aside. 28. Learned trial Court is requested to decide the prayer of the petitioner as contained under Section 151 of the CPC at the time of final disposal of the suit and learned trial Court is further requested to dispose of the suit peremptorily within 31st December, 2016 without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties to this suit. 29. Learned trial Court is requested to decide the prayer of the petitioner as contained under Section 151 of the CPC at the time of final disposal of the suit and learned trial Court is further requested to dispose of the suit peremptorily within 31st December, 2016 without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties to this suit. 29. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court with regard to the agreement or the case of the parties to this suit, while disposing of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be binding upon the learned trial Court and learned trial Court will be absolutely free to decide the suit on merit according to his own wisdom and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observation made by this Court in the forgoing paragraphs. 30. The application is thus being disposed of. 31. No order as to costs. 32. Let the copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), 1st Court, Howrah.