Item- 37. sg 23-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 3315 of 2026 Bharati Dutta Versus Subhadra Dhar & Ors. Mr. Abhijit Ray Mr. Santu Nandy …for the petitioner Mr. Sourav Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arghya Mullick Mr. Muhammad Obaid …for the opposite parties Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgment debtor and is directed against an order dated 10th August, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Cause Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 69 of 2024 arising out of an Ejectment Execution Case No. 43 of 2023. By the order impugned, the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. The opposite parties filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of building and rebuilding under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The eviction suit stood decreed and the petitioner preferred an appeal which also ended in dismissal. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that that the portion of the property which was the subject matter of the eviction suit was transferred in favour of Saumen Mallick and Ujjal Mallick. He submits that in view of the assignment, Saumen Mallick and Ujjal Mallick are necessary parties. He further submits that such transfer took place during the pendency of the suit. Petitioner seeks addition of the assignees from the decree holder in the execution case. The eviction decree is binding against the petitioner. The assignee has not sought for addition. The execution case is being proceeded with by the decree holders. In view thereof, the said Saumen Mallick and Ujjal Mallick are not necessary parties in the execution case. Petitioner could not demonstrate as to how the presence of Saumen Mallick and Ujjal Mallick would enable the Court to effectively adjudicate upon the mater in the execution case. 2 Thus, they are not also proper parties in the execution case. The learned Judge, Executing Court was right in holding that Saumen Mallick and Ujjal Mallick are not necessary parties in this execution case. The decree for eviction is binding upon the petitioner. At this stage, the petitioner cannot raise a dispute with regard to eviction decree. The learned Judge of the Executing Court was right in rejecting the application for addition of party. The learned Judge, 6th Bench, Presidency Small Cause Court at Calcutta is requested to dispose of the Misc. Case No. 69 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. After disposal of the Misc. Case, the learned Judge shall dispose of the Execution Case as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this civil revision application stands disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)