Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 256 (CAL)

Subimal Chandra Laha v. Parimal Chandra Laha

2017-03-06

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, R.K.BAG

body2017
JUDGMENT : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This first appeal was disposed of for all practical purposes on 16th February, 2017. By the said judgement and order, we directed the defendant no. 1 to remove the construction and the grill gates already installed within the common passage for making common passage free for joint user by the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 within a week from the date of the said order. It was also provided therein that in default of compliance of the direction passed by this Court on defendant no. 1, the obstruction raised in the common passage either by way of raising the brick wall and/or by installation of grill gates will be removed from the common passage under the supervision of the learned Special Officer of this Court and if necessary, the learned Special Officer, for executing that part of the decree, may take police help from the local police station. It was also directed that if the Officer-in-Charge of the local police station is so approached for police help by the learned Special Officer, the Officer-in-Charge shall render all possible assistance to the learned Special Officer for execution of that part of the decree. The execution of that part of the decree under the supervision of the learned Special Officer was kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. 2. While passing the said judgement and/or order, we made it clear in the order itself that the appeal was kept alive only for the purpose of implementation of the decree and for none else. As per our direction, the matter is appearing today for ascertaining compliance of the order by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. 3. We are informed by Mr. Raut, learned advocate appearing for the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 that in pursuance of the direction passed by this Court earlier, his client has removed two grill gates which were installed by his client on the common passage and thereby made the common passage free for joint use by the plaintiff/ appellant and the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. 4. Learned Special Officer, however, reported that though the grill gates were removed from the common passage but the brick-built construction which was made on the common passage has not been removed by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. 4. Learned Special Officer, however, reported that though the grill gates were removed from the common passage but the brick-built construction which was made on the common passage has not been removed by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. He, however, reported that even without removal of the said brick-built construction, both the parties have free access over the common passage after removal of the grill gates therefrom. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff/appellant, however, submits that as per the direction passed by this Court, the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 was also required to remove the brick-built construction raised by the defendant No. 1 on the common passage. He, thus, complains that this part of the direction passed by this Court has not been complied with by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1. 6. Be that as it may, since the grill gates have been removed and both the parties have now free access over the common passage, we dispose of this appeal with this rider that in the event the plaintiff/appellant is not satisfied with the compliance of the order so far made by the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1, he may get the rest part of the decree executed through the process of execution before the executing court in accordance with law. 7. Let the report of the learned Special Officer be kept with the record. 8. Final remuneration of the learned Special Officer is fixed at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only which will be paid by the appellant. 9. The appeal and the application filed in connection therewith are, thus, disposed of.