Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Susen Kumar Podder & Ors on 13 June, 2025
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Sl.267 13.06.2025
Court No.6
BP
C.O. 756 of 2025
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
-versus-
Susen Kumar Podder & Ors.
Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh
Mr. S. Gupta
… for the petitioner
Mr. Avinaba Patra
Mr. Dipayan Kundu
..for the opposite party no. 1
This application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is at the instance of BSNL and is
directed against an order being no. 98 dated 27th January,
2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
1st Court, Ranaghat, Nadia in Misc. Case No. 38 of 2016
arising out of Title Execution Case No. 17 of 1995.
By the order impugned the application under
Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the
petitioner herein stood rejected.
The opposite party no.1 filed a suit for declaration of
title of “A” schedule property, a decree of khas possession
of “B” schedule property by demolition of the
unauthorised boundary wall of the defendants standing
on the suit land and for perpetual injunction.
The said suit was decreed ex parte on September
27, 1993 thereby declaring the title of the plaintiff to the
“A” schedule property of the plaint with a further decree of
khas possession of “B” schedule land by demolition of the
2
unauthorised boundary wall of the defendants standing
thereon. The said decree was put into execution giving rise
to Title Execution Case No. 17 of 1995. The petitioner filed
the application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying for dismissal of the title execution case.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that the suit property was acquired by the L.A.
Collector during the period 1962-63 and 1967-68 and the
compensation was duly paid to the land owners. He
further submits that the property was acquired for the
Department of Telecommunication, Government of India
for the construction of Telephone Exchange of the suit
property. He, therefore, submits that the execution case
should not be allowed to proceed with any further as
BSNL has right, title, interest and possession in respect of
the suit property.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
places reliance upon the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip
Singh Uban and others reported at (1999) 7 SCC 44 in
support of his contention that upon issuance of the
notification under Section 6 of the Act the property vested
to the State. Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.
reported at 2008 9 SCC 177.
Heard the learned advocate for the opposite parties
on such submission.
3
The opposite parties obtained a decree in Title Suit
No. 175 of 1992 and the petitioner herein filed a
miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. The
said miscellaneous case was dismissed on 21st June, 2003
and the said order attained finality and the petitioner did
not carry the matter forward. Thereafter the petitioner has
filed this application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
It is well settled that if the decree neither suffers
from jurisdiction error nor invalidity nor there is any
objection as to the executability of the decree, an
application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is not maintainable.
From the schedule of the plaint annexed to this civil
revisional application this Court finds that plot no. 2216,
Khatian Nos. 3817 and 3816 of mouza Ranaghat has been
described as Schedule „A‟. The encroached portion has
been described in Schedule B which forms part of
Schedule „A‟.
The contention of the petitioner is that the suit
property was acquired and, the property stood vested and
the opposite party cannot claim any right, title, interest
and possession in respect of the suit property.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the entire plot
no. 2216 was acquired. It appears from the documents
annexed to this application that only a portion of the plot
4
no. 2216 has been acquired. No material has been
produced before this Court in support of the contention
that the decreetal property was acquired.
It is well settled that the executing court cannot go
behind the decree unless it was shown that it was passed
by a court having inherent lack of jurisdiction which
would make the decree a nullity.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
could not demonstrate that the decree suffers from any
jurisdictional error or the decree is a nullity in the eye of
law.
The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for
rejecting the said application.
The decisions in the case of Delhi Administration
(supra) and Meera Sahni (supra) cannot come to the aid of
the petitioner as the issue in the case on hand is whether
the decree can be impeached by filing an application
under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
For such reason, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the order impugned.
Accordingly, C.O. 756 of 2025 stands dismissed.
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.)