18.08.2026 Sl. 25 AMR Ct.No.-655 SAT 392 of 2008 With IA No.: CAN/1/2010 (Old CAN/671/2010), CAN/2/2010 (Old CAN/8883/2010), CAN/4/2013 (Old CAN/2159/2013), CAN/5/2017 (Old CAN/5871/2017), CAN/6/2026 Tarun Bhattacharya Vs. Madhab Chandra Ghosh & Ors. Mr. Anirban Roy ….for the Respondents 1. None appears on behalf of the appellant. 2. Learned advocate representing the respondents is present. 3. An application being CAN 6 of 2026 has been taken out at the instance of the respondent/decree-holder, stating, inter-alia, that the respondent, as plaintiff, had instituted a suit before the learned Trial Court seeking, amongst other reliefs, eviction of the defendant from the suit property. The said suit was contested by the defendant and was ultimately decreed by the learned Trial Court on 29.07.2005. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the defendant preferred a first appeal before the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta, being Title Appeal No. 100 of 2007. The said appeal was also dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree 2 passed by the learned Trial Court. Thereafter, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the present appeal was preferred at the instance of the defendant/judgment-debtor. 5. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent/decree-holder that, in the meantime, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court was put into execution and the execution proceeding was duly carried to its logical conclusion. It is further submitted that pursuant to such execution, the decree-holder obtained delivery of possession of the suit property in full satisfaction of the decree. In support of such contention, a photocopy of the acknowledgement evidencing delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/decree-holder has been annexed to the application. 6. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant when the matter is taken up for hearing. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court has already been executed and the respondent/decree-holder has obtained possession of the suit property in full satisfaction of the decree, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present appeal pending any further. In view of the subsequent events, the appeal has, in effect, lost its efficacy and there remains no surviving cause for its further adjudication. 7. Accordingly, there being no representation on behalf of the appellant and in view of the fact that the decree 3 under challenge has already been duly executed and satisfied, there is no justification for keeping the appeal pending. 8. The instant appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for default. 9. Consequently, the applications being CAN/1/2010 (Old CAN/671/2010), CAN/2/2010 (Old CAN/8883/2010), CAN/4/2013 (Old CAN/2159/2013) and CAN/5/2017 (Old CAN/5871/2017) are dismissed. 10. The application being CAN/6/2026 is hereby disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Let TCR be sent down to the Trial Court immediately. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon complying with all legal formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)