Authority: Calcutta High Court (Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 15 May 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Ek Prayaas Educational Society, a charitable society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, operating a free‑education school for economically weaker children at No. 5, Abdul Ali Row, Kolkata.
  • Respondents: Abdul Majeed and four others, owners/landlords of the suit premises by registered deeds of conveyance and lease executed by the Mutawalli of the Wakf Estate.
  • Background: The society took possession of the premises on 1 May 2008 after the surrender of tenancy by the former tenant C.V. Cook and later Neelam Ahmed, paying a monthly rent of Rs 1,400 to the Wakf Estate.
  • Litigation History:
  • Ejectment Suit No. 490 of 2009 filed by respondents against C.V. Cook; petitioner not impleaded; ex‑parte decree for eviction on 15 Jan 2015; execution case No. 90 of 2016 instituted.
  • Petitioner's Misc. Case No. 48 of 2018 (Order XXI Rule 101) seeking adjudication of its tenancy rights in the execution proceedings; dismissed by Presidency Small Causes Court, 3rd Bench, on 21 Apr 2022 (order held beyond court's jurisdiction).
  • Title Suit No. 1575 of 2024 filed in City Civil Court for declaration of tenancy rights; rejected on 8 May 2025 under Order VII Rule 11.
  • First Appeal (FAT No. 246 of 2025) dismissed; Division Bench noted the 21 Apr 2022 order appeared “palpably erroneous” and suggested challenge before appropriate forum.
  • Petitioner's Contentions:
  • The executing court is statutorily obligated (Order XXI Rules 97‑101) to determine any right, title, or interest arising in execution proceedings; refusal amounts to jurisdictional error.
  • The petitioner has continuously possessed the premises and paid rent; the ex‑parte decree cannot be executed against it without adjudicating its independent tenancy claim.
  • The petitioner's application under Order XXI Rule 101 was dismissed without any enquiry or adjudication, violating statutory mandate.
  • The petitioner is entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as it pursued remedy in good faith before the wrong forum.
  • Respondents' Contentions:
  • The 21 Apr 2022 order is appealable; petitioner should have filed an appeal rather than a revisional petition under Article 227, rendering the revisional application non‑maintainable.
  • The respondents are the lawful owners/landlords; the execution decree should be enforced.
  • The petitioner delayed filing the civil suit and has not justified the lapse, thus not eligible for Section 14 protection.
  • Invoking supervisory jurisdiction to delay execution is an abuse of process.
  • Authorities Cited:
  • Petitioner: Ram Kumar Tiwari v. Deenanath (2001), Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab (2015), Gurram Satyaseshamamba v. Gurram Krishnavenamma (2004).
  • Respondents: Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath (2015), Surajmal Jain v. Prabir Kumar (1980), CO 1948 of 2022 (order dated 16 Nov 2022).
  • Judicial Reasoning:
  • The Court examined the nature of “adjudication” and held that the executing court’s order of 21 Apr 2022 contained no enquiry or decision on merits; therefore it cannot be treated as a decree or deemed decree.
  • Citing Ram Kumar Tiwari and Sameer Singh, the Court found the order was “patently erroneous” and revisable.
  • The Court distinguished the facts of Surajmal Jain and Radhey Shyam, noting those cases involved orders that were appealable decrees, unlike the present order which lacked any adjudicative element.
  • The Court affirmed that where a statutory right of appeal exists, the High Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 227; however, because the order was not an appealable decree, the revisional jurisdiction remains available.
  • The Court accepted the Division Bench’s observation that the petitioner is protected by Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and therefore the delay cannot be fatal.

Final Outcome

  • The revisional application C.O No. 2617 of 2025 is allowed.
  • The order dated 21 April 2022 passed by the Presidency Small Causes Court, 3rd Bench, is set aside.
  • The executing court (Presidency Small Causes Court, 3rd Bench, Calcutta) is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application under Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC within six months of receipt of this order.
  • The interim order, if any, stands vacated; any connected application is disposed of.
  • Copies of the order are to be sent to the executing court for compliance.

Topics: Judicial Review, Tenancy Rights, Civil Procedure