01.09.2025 Item No.1424 M/L Court No.06. S. De 265719 C.O. 659 of 2024 With I.A. CAN 1 of 2024 Swapan Maity. Vs. Sakshi Gopal Chakraborty & Anr. Mr. Aninda Sarkar, …for the petitioner. In re : CAN 1 of 2024 This is an application for restoration upon recalling the order dated September 27, 2024. After going through the averments made in CAN 1 of 2025, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing when the civil revision application stood dismissed for default on September 27, 2024. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2024 stands allowed. The civil revision application is restored to its original file and number. CAN 1 of 2024 is, accordingly, disposed of. In re : C.O. 659 of 2024 This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being No.43 dated January 30, 2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No.110 of 2018. 2 By the order impugned, the petition for recalling the order dated 12.12.2018 stand rejected. The petitioner filed a suit being Title Suit No.16 of 2005, which was decreed by a judgment and decree dated July 12, 2018. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the opposite party preferred a Title Appeal no.110 of 2018. In the said Title Appeal, the opposite party prayed for stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed in the title suit. The prayer for stay of operation of the judgment and decree was allowed on August 16, 2018 without any direction for payment of occupational charges. The petitioner thereafter filed an application praying for modification of the said order which stood rejected by the order dated January 30, 2024. Though the prayer for modification of the order dated August 16, 2018 stood rejected, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated August 16, 2018 in this civil revision application and has only challenged the order rejecting the prayer for modification. That apart, stay of operation of the judgment and decree dated July 12, 2018 was passed on August 16, 2018 without directing the payment of occupational charges and the learned Judge of the 1st Appellate Court was right in not modifying the said order after a lapse of considerable period of time. That apart, since the order dated August 16, 2018 is not under challenge, this Court is not inclined to grant 3 any relief to the petitioner in this civil revision application. Accordingly, C.O. 659 of 2024 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)