Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 72 (TRI)

Arati Debnath @ Nath v. Hirak Nath

2022-02-14

T.AMARNATH GOUD

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The facts in brief in the instant revision petition are that the petitioner herein is the Judgment-Debtor in the decree passed in T.S.-04 of 1972, execution for which was filed in 2016, and the proceeding was registered as Ex(T)-10 of 2016. This was a decree for recovery of possession of homestead land in possession of the judgment-debtor. 2. The Judgment-debtor, in the meantime filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale by Title Suit-20/2019, and the said case is pending in the same Court where the execution case is pending. The application under Section 47 of the C.P.C. filed by the judgment-debtor also failed when the execution became almost certain. The judgment-debtor who is the plaintiff in the other suit apprehended recovery of possession of the same said land for which the suit for specific performance is pending in the same court, and accordingly, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 29 of the C.P.C. for a stay of execution. 3. It was contented by the petitioner in the stay petition that if once recovery is executed, the Specific performance Case shall fall in jeopardy. Accordingly, it was moved and after hearing the parties, the learned Court below dismissed the application by order dated 21.12.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 21.12.2021, in C.M. (J)94 of 2021, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Agartala, West Tripura, The petitioner herein-filed the instant petition against the order and prayed for the following relief:- 'It is therefore most humbly prayed that in view of the above grounds this Hon'ble court would be pleased to set aside the order of the learned Court below passed on 21.12.2021 in C.M. (J)94/2021 and allow the petitioners application under order 21 rule 29 for stay of the execution of Decree in T.S.04/1972.' 5. Heard Mr. S.S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. 6. The suit for specific performance is different from judgment and decree passed in favour of the decree-holder which are different proceedings. The petitioner all through was aware of the proceeding and did not take any steps for initiation of the suit on specific performance. There are laches on the part of the petitioner herein in not approaching the Court of law at an appropriate time. The petitioner all through was aware of the proceeding and did not take any steps for initiation of the suit on specific performance. There are laches on the part of the petitioner herein in not approaching the Court of law at an appropriate time. As seen from the order passed by the Court, earlier also, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application in the E.P. proceedings and the same has been dismissed. However, the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal was dismissed as withdrawn. In spite of this, there is no leave granted for filing the application again before Court below. The order of dismissal goes against the petitioner on doctrine of res judicata. The petitioner has not filed the order of the said application and the copy of the said interlocutory application. In the CRP proceeding, the petitioner has not filed the said affidavit and the petition which have been dismissed by the Trial Court. About the said E.P proceeding the grounds of the CRP are also silent. This Court has no hesitation to say that it is the suppression of fact. Since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. 7. This Court is not entertaining the present CRP for the reasons indicated above. Accordingly, this instant CRP is dismissed.