D/L- 13 02/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2927 of 2025 Sri Sourav Sarkar Vs. M/s. Equipment & Ors. Mr. Shubham Gupta Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi ….for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No.44 dated July 15, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta in Ejectment Suit No.51 of 2021. By the order impugned the application under Section 7(3) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 stood rejected. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that summons was served upon the defendant on March 11, 2021 but the arrear amount as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act was deposited only on April 13, 2021 i.e. beyond the stipulated time frame of 30 days from the date of service of summons. Record reveals that the defendant/opposite party entered appearance in the suit by filing a Vakalatnama on March 31, 2021 and on that date itself filed applications under Section 7(1) and 7(2) of the 1997 Act. The learned judge took up the hearing of the application under Section 7(1) of the 1997 act on that date itself i.e. on March 31, 2 2021 and by that order directed the petitioner to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of the order. It is not in dispute that the defendant/opposite party in compliance with the order passed by the learned trial judge deposited the arrear amount on April 13, 2021. The order dated March 31, 2021 granting a time of 30 days to deposit the arrear amount under Section 7(1) of the 1997 Act has already attained finality and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner. A party cannot be faulted for complying with the directions passed by the Court. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the application under Section 7(3) of the 1997 Act. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that when the statute prescribed a time frame for performing an act, the Court cannot extend the time. The order dated March 31, 2021 fixing a time frame for making a deposit was passed in the presence of the petitioner. Such order has not been challenged by the petitioner. After accepting the said order the petitioner cannot be allowed to turn around and take a plea that the defence should be struck off for depositing the amount beyond the time limit stipulated under the statute though the defendant/opposite party complied with the directions passed by the learned trial judge. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in course of his argument placed reliance upon a decision of 3 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Raman Sharma vs. Prem Lata Prabhakar & Ors., reported at 2024 SCC Online Del 9404. The said decision cannot be said to be a binding precedent upon this Court. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner. Accordingly, CO 2927 of 2026 stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)