Asim Kumar Mondal, J.The revisional application has been filed by Smt. Pratima Kundu challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated August 16th, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 1050 of 2010 arising out of Ejectment Execution Case No. 29 of 2009. The case of the petitioner in short is that the petitioner is a member of Naba Kailash Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.. Flat No. 10/C was allotted to her by the Managing Committee of opposite party No. 2 i.e. Naba Kailash Co-operative Housing Society against payment of valuable consideration. A deed of conveyance was accordingly executed. The petitioner being sole and absolute owner of the said flat is occupying the same since 1988. The opposite party No. 1 Ashoke Kumar Tibriwal raised a dispute against the opposite party No. 2 and 3 i.e. the Secretary and the co-operative society before register of co-operative society u/s 95 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which was registered as 82/RCS/88-89 claiming for declaration that the resolution for cessation of membership and cancellation of Flat No. 10/C is illegal and inoperative. The opposite party No. 1 got the order in his favour. The opposite party No. 1 raised another dispute before the arbitrator which was registered as dispute case No. 15/RCS/95-96 against the opposite party No. 2 and 3 praying for possession of the flat No. 10/C. The arbitrator directed the opposite party No. 2 and 3 to vacate and hand over possession of the said flat to opposite party No. 1. No appeal was preferred by the opposite party No. 2 and 3. The opposite party No. 1 put the said order/award into execution before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore which was registered as Ejectment Execution Case No. 29 of 2009 and in the said execution case date for possession has been fixed. The opposite party No. 1 filed an application for police help under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC which was registered as Misc. Case No. 699 of 2010.

2. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99, 100 and 101 of the CPC for determination of her interest in respect of said flat before the Court below which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1050 of 2010. The said Misc. Case is still pending for disposal.

3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the ejectment execution case was filed before the learned Court below after lapse of 12 years and as such same is hopelessly barred by limitation.

4. The decree-holder/opposite party No. 1 filed an application u/s 15 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay along with the execution application but surprisingly the said application u/s 15 of the Limitation Act is still pending for disposal although the execution proceeding is over.

5. The petitioner filed an application u/s 151 of the CPC praying for recall of all the orders passed in the execution case save and except order No. 1 and to proceed with the execution case after disposing of the application u/s 15 of the Limitation Act. It is alleged that the execution proceeding cannot be proceeded without disposing of the petition u/s 15 of the Limitation Act. It is the duty of the Court to determine preliminary question of limitation on the basis of plaintiffs own case and after condonation of delay the Court may hear the case on merit.

6. Learned Executing Court by the order impugned dated August 16th, 2012 was pleased to reject the said application on contest.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal the present revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that learned court below acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, further that the learned Court below failed to consider that the application for condonation of delay should be disposed of first and, thereafter, the Court may proceeded with the main proceedings and finally that the learned court below erred in law in not considering the prayer of the petitioner in the said application u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Das with Mr. Subhabrata Das and Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu appear for the petitioner and submit that by a resolution dated June 10th, 1988 the Managing Committee of the opposite party No. 2 allotted the flat 3D, subsequently on the request of petitioner flat in question 10/C was allotted in place of 3D. The petitioner paid a full consideration money and got the flat registered by a deed of conveyance and she is in possession since 1988 after paying all rents and taxes. The petitioner was in dark about the dispute cases filed by the opposite party No. 1 against the opposite party No. 2 and 3. He was not made party therein though by the order passed in the dispute cases she has been affected and her right, title and interest has been prejudiced. The learned Counsel further submits that the opposite party No. 1 in collusion with the opposite party No. 2 and 3 has obtained the award which has been put into execution after lapse of 12 years. Learned Executing Court without considering the maintainability of the execution case on the point of limitation has proceeded straightway towards the process of delivery of possession. Learned counsel further submits that under such circumstances one petition u/s 151 of the CPC was filed before the learned Trial Court with a prayer to dispose of the application filed by the opposite party No. 1 u/s 15 of the Limitation Act, passed order and then proceed with the execution case in accordance with the merit. It is further submitted that the execution case was filed after lapse of 12 years of the passing of award. So, it is clear that the execution case is hopelessly time barred. Learned Executing Court without considering the fact that the execution case is time barred proceeded illegally. Mr. Das relied upon the decisions of Honble Supreme Court reported in Brahmdeo Chaudhary, Adv. Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, and Ram Kali Devi (Smt) Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shamshabad and Others,

9. Mr. Krishnendu Banerjee, Mr. Asit Chakraborty, Mr. Priyabrata Thakur and Mr. Subhajit Panja appear on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and submits that the petitioner has got no locus standi to raise any objection in the execution proceeding being No. 29 of 2009 as she was not the party in original dispute case. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved, since she claims in her purported case that she has been in possession of the flat in question and admittedly she did not file any dispute or appeal. She has prayed for declaration of her right, title and interest as absolute owner of the demised flat in her Misc. Case No. 1050 of 2010. So, she has no locus standi to say anything in execution case No. 29 of 2009 which is in between the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 and 3. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the petitioner is to prove her own case and she cannot raise a question that the execution case is time barred since admittedly she has nothing to do with the said execution case. Mr. Banerjee referred and handed over the photocopies of order passed by this Court in C.O. No. 2605 of 2011 and submits that the petitioner brought similar allegation in the said revisional application which was dismissed. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the ejectment execution case No. 29 of 2009 has been filed before the learned Trial court well within the period of limitation of 12 years, if the time during which proceedings before the Honble Court were suspended be excluded in computing the period of limitation prescribed for execution of the decree and accordingly the petition u/s 15 of the Limitation Act was filed explaining the situations and praying for condonation of delay. Mr. Banerjee submits that one of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.O. No. 2605 of 2011 in an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner herein has been pleased to hold and observe that learned Trial Judge is correct in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to move any such application in the execution proceeding for removal of defect. The petitioner is entitled to seek remedy under Order 21 Rule 99 of the CPC in Misc. Case No. 1050 of 2011 if she satisfied the Court regarding her right. It is needless to mention that in that event she would be entitled to an order accordingly.

10. On careful perusal of the photocopy of the petition u/s 151 of the CPC filed by the petitioner herein in Misc. Case No. 1050 of 2010 arising out of Ejectment Case No. 29 of 2009 it appears to me that she has contended that she at her own cost furnished construction work and make it habitable contention after payment of entire consideration money in the year 1988. It is further contended in the said petition that the petitioner was not made a party in the said dispute case No. 15/RCS of 1995-96, although it was well within the knowledge of all the opposite parties that petitioner being a member of the Co-operative society, the opposite party No. 2 i.e. the secretary of the Co-operative society allotted the flat in question in her favour and using the same since 1988. Under such circumstances she prayed in the petition u/s 151 of the CPC to recall of the orders passed in ejectment execution case No. 29 of 2009 except order No. 1.

11. Learned Trial Court upon hearing both sides has been pleased to observe that admittedly an application u/s 15 of the Limitation Act is pending for disposal. If at the time of disposing of the application the execution case is found to be barred by law. The case shall automatically be held to be non-maintainable. Therefore, learned Trial Court find no reason for recalling of the orders passed in execution case till date.

12. Considering the facts and the backgrounds of the dispute between the parties over the issue of cancellation of membership of opposite party No. 2 and allotment of flat 10/C to the present petitioner Pratima Kundu which was initially allotted to opposite party and subsequent award passed by arbitrator declaring resolution cancelling the membership of opposite party No. 1 is illegal and on such award opposite party No. 1 raised another dispute case for delivery of possession which was also awarded in his favour, hence the execution of the said award, I am of the view that these litigation continued without involving the present petitioner who has claimed in possession of the flat in question. She did not raise any objection at any stage of such litigation or preferred any appeal and as such she has got no locus standi to challenge any order or application in execution case filed by the opposite party No. 1.

13. Admittedly she has filed an application under Order 21 rule 99, 100 and 101 praying for determination of her right, title and interest in the disputed flat which is pending for adjudication.

14. In my considered view taking into the background of the case as stated above learned Trial court has rightly and correctly rejected the petition filed by the petitioner u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner has got scope to prove her own case under Order 21 Rule 99, 100 and 101 of the CPC in Misc. Case No. 1050 of 2010 arising out of ejectment execution case No. 29 of 2009.

15. In the result the present revisional application is liable to be dismissed.

16. Thus, the revisional application stands dismissed without costs. The order impugned dated August 16th, 2012 passed in Misc. Case No. 1050 of 2010 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore stands not interfered. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis.