Decree holder files hazira. On behalf of the Judgement debtors hazira is filed. On behalf of the judgement debtors w/o is filed against the petition dt. 14.3.2019 of the decree holder. Copy served.

Decree holder files his submission today in writing. Copy served. Ld. Advocate of the judgement debtor endorsed his “objection” on the same.

This Forum also asked the decree holder whether he will accept the bank draft of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lakh) only filed on behalf of the judgement debtors on 4.9.2019 or not. Decree holder himself openly submits that he will not receive the bank draft of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On 4.9.2019 decree holder himself also endorsed his remarks on the firisti upon which said bank draft was filed on behalf of the to the effect “Refused to accept the draft/cheque”. Be it mentioned that against as a chance this Forum offered to decree holder whether he would receive the said draft or not and decree holder refused to accept the same which has been mentioned.

Having heard the decree holder and the ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the judgement debtors and after careful perusal of the materials on record it is pertinent to mention that in connection with an order dt. 9.7.2016 (arising out of CC no. 12 of 2016) of the concerned ld. Lok Adalat at C.D.R.F, Hooghly, this Forum on 22.9.2016 in connection with CC no. 12 of 2016 directed judgement debtors to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as per undertaking to the decree holder on or before 24.10.2016 and report the same by appearing before this Forum on 24.10.2016.

So, it is crystal clear that judgement debtors were directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before 24.10.2016 to the decree holder.

Now, it appears that thereafter revision petition no. RP/199 of 2016 was preferred by the judgement debtors before the Hon’ble State Commission and the said revision was dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dt. 16.11.2016.

Further it may be noted that judgement debtors subsequently preferred  Revision Being No. 365 of 2016 with C.A.N. 11141 of 2016 in C.O. 3868 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta and the Hon’ble  High Court, Calcutta vide its order dt. 3.2.2017 clearly observed “……… in view of the dismissal of the review application, the connection application being C.A.N. 11141 of 2016 has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed of ………………”

It is to be further noted that judgement debtors also preferred SLP being no. 7072/2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dt. 6.12.2018 in connection with CO No. 501/2017 of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in which Hon’ble Supreme court did not find no reasons to interfere in the matter vide order dt. 15.3.2019 and accordingly dismissed the SLP.

Now, the moot point we are required to consider that order dt. 22.9.2016 of this Forum wherein judgement debtors have been directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the decree holder by  24.10.2016.

It is pertinent to note that to prefer any application before any superior Forum/ Authority against the order dt. 22.9.2016 of this Forum is a legal and statutory right of the judgement debtors and as such it cannot be said that as judgement debtors moved before the different Hon’ble higher Forums and as such they will be saddled with costs. The argument advanced by the decree holder that because of marathon different proceedings before different higher Forums caused his sufferings and as such he is entitled to have some award in the form of compensation whatsoever, but we cannot concur with such view of the decree holder. Rather, it can be said that we do not find any force and spirit  in such submissions of the decree holder. We are of the view that exercising of legal right preferring different applications before the different Hon’ble higher Forum certainly will not encumber the judgement debtors to pay any cost, compensation whatsoever. Moreover the order dt. 22.9.2016 of this Forum has been passed in accordance  with the order of Lok Adalat C.D.R.F, Hooghly dt. 9.7.2016, further we can say that the order dt. 22.9.2016 is an order of final form and this Forum has become funtcus officio resulting which further observation in this regard will be highly prejudicial and illegal in the interest of justice.

Therefore, as the decree holder openly and flatly and by his endorsement in writing on firisti refused to accept the said bank draft of Rs. 5,00,000/-, already tendered by the judgement debtors, the ends of justice demands that recalling of W/A against the judgement debtors will be appropriate and logical. Thus, recall W/A if any, against the judgement debtors at once.

We further mention that the entire episode certainly indicates that decree holder at this juncture is not entitled to have any further cost or compensation whatsoever.

In light of the above discussion the instant execution case is disposed of.