The High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories: High Court Of Calcutta
The application was filed to speak about the issue were the purpose of expunging parties names from the eviction proceeding but also for the determination of the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer over the connected eviction proceeding, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE BISWAJIT BASU, in the matter Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal and others[C.O. 947 of 2020].
The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No. 4 dated February 24, 2020. Whereas the appeal Court below by the order impugned has passed an ex parte ad interim order of stay of all further proceedings of the said eviction proceeding till March 12, 2020; the said order was subsequently extended.
Mr Sanjib Mal, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Estate Officer by the order dated February 04, 2020, was dismissed an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 to the said eviction proceeding, the opposite party no. 1 herein, for expunging his name from the said eviction proceeding. He further also submits that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were abusing the process of law to any extent to delay the disposal of the eviction proceeding.
Mr Saptangshu Basu, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 submits that the present application filed by his client is not only to expunge his name from the eviction proceeding, Mr Basu submits that an appeal is provided against every order of the Estate Officer under Section 9 of the said Act of 1971, therefore, he disputes the contention of Mr Mal that the order of the Estate Officer dated February 04, 2020is not open to appeal under the said provision of the said Act of 1971, to buttress his such argument, He also places reliance based on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs. NANDINI J. AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 356, in the case of THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD vs. GOKAL CHAND reported in [ AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 799].
The earlier application of the opposite party no. 1 was disposed by The Estate Officer by the order dated September 25, 2013, the opposite party no. 1 herein assailed the said order dated September 25, 2013, in revision being [C.O. 3678 of 2013] but ultimately did not press the said revisional application. Shri. Om Prakash Agarwal, the opposite party no. 1 of the said eviction proceeding, the opposite party no. 2 herein, also filed a similar application for expunging his name from the eviction proceeding which was also dismissed.
The first prayer of the opposite party no. 1 is misconceived since the Estate Officer has no power to transfer a proceeding pending before him to any other Estate Officer. The Estate Officer by his earlier order decided to consider the prayer of the opposite party no. 1 for expunging his name from the proceeding along with the main proceeding for eviction. The said order was affirmed in revision by the High Court.
The argument of Mr Basu that every order of Estate Officer is open to appeal is fallacious. The decisions relied on by him are wholly misplaced. He also relied on consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 356 (supra). The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 799 (supra)] also relied on by Mr Basu is of no help.
The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it believed that – The Estate Officer shall ensure the payment of such costs, in default of payment of the said costs within the time stipulated above, the Estate Officer also proceed to dispose of the eviction proceeding ex parte against the said opposite party no. 1. Needless to say, that the Estate Officer shall dispose of the said eviction proceeding expeditiously keeping in mind the mandate of the proviso appended to Section 5 of the said Act of 1971 [C.O. 947 of 2020] is allowed with the above terms.