TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment for sale in relation whereto they filed a suit being Title Suit No.49 of 1990 for specific performance thereof in the court of 9th Assistant District Judge, Alipore. The aforementioned Title Suit No.412 of 1977 was decreed and for execution thereof the appellant filed an execution case before the 1st Munsif, Alipore which was marked as Title Execution Case No.46 of 1991. In the meanwhile, the respondents preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.412 of 1977 which was allowed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Alipore on or about 24.02.1992 in Title Appeal No.309 of 1991. A second appeal thereagainst was preferred by the appellant before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as Second appeal No.425 of 1992 and by a judgment and decree dated 18.12.1998 the second appeal was allowed as a result whereof the decree for eviction was restored. The matter came up in appeal before this Court by way of Special leave petition. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 18.10.2000 wherein the following agreement between the parties was recorded : "Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Shanta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs by the respondents which was rejected. Correctness of the said order was questioned before the High Court and by an order dated 7.4.2003, it directed the Executing Court to decide the application for stay upon assigning sufficient reasons. The matter, however, stood adjourned from time to time. On or about 6.5.2003, the Executing Court passed the following order : "It is the admitted position that the decree holder filed an undertaking before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the effect that she would not execute the decree passed in T.S. 412/77 till the decision of T.S. 49/90. It is further admitted that T.S. 49/90 was dismissed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 9th Court, Alipore. The documents on record reveal that the said suit was subsequently restored and has presently been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court vide F.M.A.T. 2387/02 with C.A. No.7352/02. The d.hr. has urged that the undertaking before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has lost its force and is no longer effective as T.S.49/90 and as such, there is no bar to proceed with the instant case. The j.drs. on the other hand, have contended that on restoration of T.S. 49/90, the said undertaking has again revived....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and does not remain operative thereafter. Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the execution proceedings should remain stayed having regard to the unequivocal undertaking given before this Court by the appellant in this behalf. Mr. Mukherjee would contend that the respondents have preferred a regular substantive appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2001 passed by the 9th Civil Judge, Senior Division in Title Suit No.49 of 1990 irrespective of the steps taken for review of the said order and in that view of the matter the decision therein has not attained finality. The short question which, thus, arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the undertaking of the appellant survives. The undertaking of the appellant was to the effect that she would not execute the decree passed in the aforementioned suit till the decision of Title Suit No.49 of 1990. The said statement must be read together with the operative portion of the order which would clearly go to show that the appellant had given the aforementioned undertaking that the eviction decree would not be executed till the deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l interpretation which tends to defeat the object of the legislation must be avoided." In Rajeswar Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of West Bengal and Another reported in AIR 1965 SC 1887, it was held: "Article 141 empowers the Supreme Court to declare the law and enact it. Hence the observation of the Supreme Court should not be read as statutory enactments. It is also well known that ratio of a decision is the reasons assigned therein." (See also M/s. Amar Nath Om Prakash and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others [1985 (1) SCC 345] and Hameed Joharan (Dead) and Others Vs. Abdul Salam (Dead) By LRs. And Others [(2001) 7 SCC 573]) The said undertaking was given by the appellant despite the fact that this Court did not find any merit in the special leave petition filed by the respondents herein against the judgment and decree passi by the High Court of Calcutta in the said Second Appeal No.425 of 1992. We cannot shut our eyes to the ground reality that even the courts including this Court allow sufficient time to the tenant to vacate the premises. In the instant case, an undertaking was given by the landlord to the effect that the decree shall not be executed till the ....