15 3311..0088..22002266 Court No. 652 D.Hira CO 4121 of 2025 Dr. Syed Asgar Nawaz Vs. Ms. Purabi Nath & Ors. Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra. … for the petitioner Mr. Siva Prasad Ghose, Ms. Neha Roy, Mr. Sujit Sahoo. … for the opposite parties 1. An order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 5th Court at Howrah dated 8th September, 2026 in Miscellaneous Case No. 100 of 2018 is under challenge in the instant revision. 2. The petitioner/judgment debtor has challenged the Court’s order directing payment of occupational charges against him at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month, as a condition precedent for stay of execution proceedings. 3. Fact remains that the suit filed by the present petitioner/plaintiff stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court, whereas the petitioner claims that during pendency of the suit, possession of the suit property was surrendered by him in favour of the defendants, that is, the present opposite parties. 4. In connection with the said suit, the defendants/opposite parties filed a counter-claim which was ultimately decreed by the Court, though ex- parte. 2 5. Now when the defendants/opposite parties have put the decree into execution, the petitioner has been subjected to the order as impugned that is, dated 8th September, 2025. 6. Therefore, the petitioner has come up before this Court stating that in spite of surrender of possession of the suit property in favour of the defendants/opposite parties, the petitioner should not have been subjected to any occupational charges and that the learned Trial Court went wrong in this regard, in the said impugned order. 7. There is no material on record to show the fact of surrender of possession of the suit property by the petitioner in favour of the opposite parties/decree holder. Therefore, the Executing Court, while executing the decree, has proceeded in accordance with law towards recovery of possession, as it could not go beyond the decree. 8. This Court finds no infirmity or material irregularity or manifest and palpable illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court as impugned in the instant revisional application. 9. The present revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 10. CO No. 4121 of 2025 is dismissed. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)