Order No.2                         

Ld. Advocate for the Decree holder / petitioner is present.

Ld. Advocate for the Judgement debtor nos.1,3 and 4 is present.

The Misc. Application dated 31/07/2023 is taken up for hearing.
Perused. Considered.

Heard both side.

Ld. Advocate for the Decree holder /petitioner submits that the Decree holder sent the final order / judgement date 13/09/2019 passed in complaint case being no.CC/347/2017 upon the Judgement debtors through postal department but the same could not be served upon them and it were returned with postal remarks ‘item returned addressee moved’ ; ‘item returned left without instructions’.

However, the Decree holder/petitioner sent the final order/judgement dated 13/09/2019 as aforesaid to Judgement debtors through email.

Thereafter the Decree holder filed execution case being no. EA/133/2019.

According to the Decree holder/petitioner, the Judgement debtor nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed an Appeal being No.A/88/2022 along with IA being no IA/392/2022 against the final order/judgement dated 13/09/2019 in connection with CC/347/2017.

It is further stated that the Judgement debtor nos.3 and 4 are accused in a criminal case vide Bowbazar PS Case No.190/2018 dated 25/06/2018 and the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet U/S 420 of 120B of IPC. In both the appeal cases as well as criminal case the addresses of the Judgement debtors are same, which are mentioned in the execution case but neither the notices sent through postal department nor the warrant of arrest could be executed by the police authority upon the Judgement debtors and returned with negative remark.

The Decree holder/petitioner prays for passing necessary order in this case.

In reply Ld. Advocate for the Judgement debtors submits that the Judgement debtors bonafidely mentioned the addresses in their affidavit but they are not aware of the notices or warrant of arrest which were returned with some remarks of the postal authority and /or police authority.

According to that Judgement debtor could not be held responsible for the remarks written by the postal authority and/or police authority.

In course of hearing the instant Commission gave opportunity to the Decree holder/petitioner to file evidence, if any in this case. But Ld. Advocate for the Decree holder / petitioner refuses to submit any evidence against the postal remarks of the returned envelopes bearing notices as well as the report of the Investigating Officer and/or Police authority in support of the contention made in the Misc. Application dated 31/07/2023.

The Decree holder/petitioner submits the returned sealed envelopes of the Judgement debtors with postal remark along with firisti.

In our considered opinion, the Judgement debtors cannot be held responsible for the remarks written by the postal authority on the sealed envelopes and/or for the report submitted by the Investigation Officer / Police authority.

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the Misc. Application dated 31/07/2023 filed by the Decree holder / petitioner. As such, the same is liable to be rejected.

Hence, it is

                                    O R D E R E D

that the instant Misc. Application be and the is dismissed on contest without cost.