Sl.23 03.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2976 of 2026 Saikat Paria -versus- Sri Kishore Kumar Lala & Ors. Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Subhrajyoti Ghosh ..for the petitioner Ms. Usha Maiti Mr. Sukanta Das Mr. Sakya Maity ..for the opposite party no.1 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a third party/ applicant in a Miscellaneous case under Order 21 Rule 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is directed against an order being no. 101 dated 12th August, 2026 (wrongly typed as 12.08.2025 in the certified copy of the order impugned) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Contai in J. Misc. Case No.59 of 2025 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2023. By the order impugned the application for stay of all further proceeding in Title Execution Case No. 02 of 2023 till the disposal of the J. Misc. Case No. 59 of 2025 stood rejected. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of a portion of A-1 schedule property being Dag No. 90 within Mouza Subdi under Police Station Junput Coastal (earlier 2 Contai) in the District of Purba Medinipur measuring about 1 decimal out of 26 decimals on the southern side. He submits that in the miscellaneous case under Order 21 Rule 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioners have claimed to have acquired title in respect of the A-1 schedule property by way of adverse possession. He submits that the decree holders are taking steps to take possession by demolishing the structure of the petitioner in the garb of execution of the final decree passed in a partition suit. In support of such contention Mr. Mukherjee places reliance upon the tabular statement being the application for execution of the decree filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Per contra Ms. Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the decree holder/opposite party no.1 submits that the partition suit was filed sometimes in the year 1986. The preliminary decree was passed on 21st March, 2011 and the final decree was passed on 30th April, 2021. She submits that after passing of the final decree the petitioner might have raised a construction on a portion of Dag No. 90. She submits that the execution proceeding is pending from the year 2023 and in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the same has to be disposed of expeditiously within the time limit stipulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for disposal of execution cases. 3 In reply Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid contention of Ms. Maiti by submitting that the petitioner is running hardware business on a portion of Dag No. 90 from the year 2004. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the Commissioner’s report it prima facie appears to this Court that plot no.90 within Mouza Subdi under Police Station Contai, J.L. No.47 in the District of Purba Medinipur was allotted in favour of the decree holder/opposite party no.1 measuring an area of 8-118/125 decimals at the southern portion out of 26 decimals. From the schedule of the application under Order 21 Rule 99 Code of Civil Procedure it prima facie appears to this Court that the petitioners have made a claim of adverse possession in respect of a portion of Dag No.90 within Mouza Subdi on the southern part measuring about one decimal out of 8-118/125 decimals. It, however, appears from the schedule of the miscellaneous case that though the northern boundary has been mentioned, the other boundaries of the portion alleged to be occupied by the petitioner has not been specified. By that as it may, since a miscellaneous case under Order 21 Rule 99 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed claiming adverse possession on a portion of Dag No.90, and in view of Order 21 Rule 101 of the Code, 4 this Court is of the view that the said miscellaneous case should be disposed of within a specified time frame. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs.& Ors. Vs. V. Rajamani & Anr. reported at (2025) 9 SCC 568. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 75 of the said decision noticed an earlier decision in the case of Rahul S. Shah (supra) wherein the guidelines and directions have been provided in paragraph 42 of Rahul S. Shah (supra). For the purpose of deciding the issues raised in this civil revisional application it would be relevant to take note of paragraphs 42.8, 42.9, 42.10 and 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra). The said sub-paragraphs are extracted hereinafter for better appreciation. “42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant. 42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits. 42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A. *** 42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, 5 which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.” After noting the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the mandatory direction contained in paragraph 42.12 of Rahul S. Shah (supra) requiring the execution proceeding to be completed within six months from the date of filing has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhoj Raj Garg Vs. Goyal Education and Welfare Society & Ors., Special Leave Petition (C ) Nos. 19654 of 2022. Since a specific guideline has been framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing the executing court to dispose of the execution proceeding within six months from the date of its filing and in the case on hand the execution case is pending from the year 2023, this Court is inclined is inclined to pass certain directions upon the learned executing court. C.O. 2976 of 2026 stands disposed of by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Contai to take up the hearing of the J. Misc. Case No. 59 of 2025 on 5th September, 2026 and to make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible by fixing day today hearing of the miscellaneous case in the light of the directions contained in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyammal (supra) as extracted hereinbefore. 6 The learned judge of the executing court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the execution case within a period of thirty working days from the next date fixed without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties in view of the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It will be open to the opposite party to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law but the structures that may be in existence on a portion of Dag No.90 allegedly occupied by the petitioner shall not be demolished till thirty working days from the next date fixed for hearing in the miscellaneous case. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)