Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Revisionary Jurisdiction, Appellate Side

Order Date: 08 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Sethia Organisation (partnership firm) filed a revision under Article 227 challenging Order No. 16 dated 20 April 2026 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of District Revenue Courts (Addl. D.C.D.R.C.), Rajarhat, in Execution Application No. DC/AB1/303/EA/90/2023 (Sethia Organisation vs Keka Sarkar & Ors.).
  • Background: A final judgment dated 31 October 2023 in Complaint Case No. DC/AB1/303/CC/619/2022 ordered execution of a Deed of Conveyance for Flat No. 5 on the 4th floor (1,000 sq ft super‑built‑up + 200 sq ft garage) situated in Plot No. 119, Block ‘B’, Lake Town (then Dum Dum), North 24 Parganas. The property (3 Cottahs 15 Chittaks 36 sq ft) was purchased by the petitioner partnership on 17 February 1987 from Sri Sachindra Mohan Saha and Sri Dhirendra Mohan Saha.
  • Petitioner’s claim: The flat is part of the partnership’s property, not of the proprietorship “Sethia Organisation” (Raj Kumar Sethia). It alleged that Opposite Party No. 1 deliberately named the proprietorship to avoid service and obtain an ex‑parte decree, and that the underlying claim rested on an Agreement for Sale dated 17 February 1991 between Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 (Smt Susma Saha), to which the petitioner was not a party.
  • Procedural history: Petitioners obtained certified copies of execution and complaint records on 12 January 2026 and 7 April 2026 respectively. On 12 February 2026 the Addl. D.C.D.R.C. ordered Opposite Party No. 1 to furnish execution papers and fixed a hearing for 20 April 2026. On 20 April 2026 the Commission dismissed the petitioner’s application for leave to file objections, held that petitioner’s credentials did not match those in the 31 Oct 2023 judgment, and allowed I.A. No. 26/2026, appointing the Registrar as Executrix and directing filing of a draft Deed of Conveyance within 15 days.
  • Arguments: Petitioner argued denial of opportunity to contest execution and mis‑identification of owner. Opposite Party No. 1 contended the petition was frivolous and that the original decree was correctly against the proprietorship and developer.

Final Outcome

  • The Calcutta High Court found no illegality in the Addl. D.C.D.R.C.’s rejection; the petitioner failed to file a proper stay application and the property claimed does not match the decree schedule.
  • C.O. No. 1600 of 2026 is dismissed without costs; any connected applications are disposed of; interim orders, if any, are vacated.
  • The court clarified that dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from filing an appropriate application before the correct forum.

Topics: Legal Proceedings, Property Execution