Calcutta High Court
Reconstruction Company Pvt Ltd. And Ors vs Orient Beverages Limited on 20 July, 2026
OD- 23
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
EC/20/2025
IA NO: GA/2/2025
SQUARE FOUR ASSETS MANAGEMENT AND
RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD. AND ORS
VS
ORIENT BEVERAGES LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY
Date : 20th JULY, 2026.
Appearance :
Mr. Ratnanko Banaerji, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sristi Barman Roy, Adv.
Ms. Sudipta Paul, Adv.
..for the decree-holders
Mr. Kaushik Banerjee, Adv.
..for the judgment-debtor
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner in GA/2/2025
Mr. Jayanta Kr. Dhar, Adv.
Ms. A. Das Jana, Adv.
For the Receiver
1. The Applicants in GA/2/2025 assert continuous, peaceful and independent
possession of the portions enumerated in the averments therein since 22 nd
January, 1990 through successive registered leases derived from the Mullick
Trustees.
2. The possession of the applicants is claimed to be entirely distinct from the
suit property forming the subject-matter of CS No.144 of 2016 and were
never impleaded as parties to the suit nor did they claim any right, title and
interest through any judgment debtor.
2
3. The decree sought to be executed in EC No.20 of 2025 alleged to have been
enforced against portions lying beyond the decree scheduled by affixation of
notices of symbolic possession.
4. Contending that the decree is not binding upon them and that their
independent possessory rights deserve protection under Order XXI Rules 99
and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Applicants seek leave to
intervene and declaration regarding the non-binding character of the decree
qua their occupation and consequential restraint upon further interference
with their possession.
5. The materials placed before the Court disclose at this stage, a substantial
and bona fide assertion of an independent possessory right in favour of the
applicant.
6. The pleadings disclosed that the applicants have not been parties to CS
No.144 of 2016, nor it is demonstrated, prima facie, that their possession
flows through any judgment debtor against whom the decree has been
passed.
7. The claim of the applicant rests upon a separate chain of registered leases
under long standing course of occupation extending over several decades.
8. The relief sought is based upon the statutory entitlement of an independent
occupant to protect the right of the same before the decree is permitted to
operate against him.
9. Significantly, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents has, upon
instructions, stated before this Court that no objection is raised to the prayer
for intervention and for adjudication the applicants claim in accordance to
3
the procedure contemplated under Order XXI Rules 99 and 101 of the Code
of Civil Procedure.
10. The Learned Advocate representing the Respondents further conceded to the
fact that the portion of leased property as claimed by the applicant fell
beyond the ambit of the decreetal property.
11. The stand adopted on behalf of the Respondents coupled with the nature of
the relief sought, the application being GA/282025 is allowed to the extent
that the property pertaining to the interest of the Applicants being under
their possession shall not be disturbed till their right title and interest if any
over the same is finally determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
12. GA/2/2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.
(ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.)
A Dey
