18.08.2026 Item No.7 Ct. No.652 Sayan C.O. 4455 of 2025 Prabha Surana (Since deceased) Represented by his legal heirs Shanti Kumar Surana (Husband) & Ors. Vs Reema Punjabi Mr. Shounak Bhattacharya Mr. Debabrata Roy Mr. Oishik Chatterjee ….for the petitioners Mr. V.N. Dwivedi Ms. Jayanti Char ……for the opposite party 1. An order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court at Alipur dated November 29, 2025, passed in Misc. Case No. 243 of 2025, has been assailed in the instant revision. 2. The Court has directed for stay of operation of the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the same in Money Suit No. 235 of 2021, until further orders. The Court has further directed that the order of stay shall remain in force till the next date of hearing of the case before the Court. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and decree holder in Money Suit No. 235 of 2021. The petitioner has been granted an ex-parte decree in the said Money Suit. Subsequently, the opposite party/defendant, who though not made appearance in the suit, subsequently has filed the Misc. case as above, under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, praying for setting aside of the ex-parte decree earlier granted by the Court in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. In the said Misc. case, the present opposite 2 party filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking stay of operation of the judgment and decree in the Money Suit. Having found that a stay order would be necessary or otherwise the Misc. case as above filed by the present opposite party/judgment debtor/defendant would be infructuous, the learned Trial Court directed for stay of operation of the judgment and decree in the Money Suit as above. 4. Mr. Shounak Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that in a money decree, a blanket stay order as has been granted by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order is only unwarranted. It is submitted that the judgment debtor/present opposite party, should have been put into terms before a lawful decree holder like the present petitioners could be restrained from realizing the decree and enjoy the fruits of the decree. He submits that the ex-parte decree is not different in any way and stands at per with the usual contested decree of a Civil Court in the eye of law. Therefore, according to him, for staying the operation of the same, the judgment debtor should have been put into terms by the Court, in accordance with law. 5. Mr. V. N. Dwivedi, learned advocate has represented the opposite party. According to the respondent, the Court can put a judgment debtor to terms and direct for payment of mesne profit by him only at the time of final order in an application filed by the said judgment debtor for setting aside of the ex- 3 parte money decree. In this regard, Mr. Dwivedi has relied on a judgment of this Court in Dr. Abhijit Ghosh and another versus Mukunda Lal Ganguly and another reported in 2002 1CHN Cal 601. This Court in the case of Dr. Abhijit Ghosh (supra) has found that in case where the Court finds no fault on part of the defendant and it is seen that the plaintiff has obtained an ex-parte decree without due service of summons upon the defendant, the Court can pass necessary order to put in conditions, to set aside such ex-parte decree. 6. Having considered the submissions of both the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the records it appears that the petitioners/plaintiffs have obtained an ex- parte decree in Money Suit No. 235 of 2021, which they put into execution. The judgment debtor/opposite party on the other hand files the Misc. Case No. 243 of 2025 in the main suit under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, praying for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. In the said Misc. case, the Court directed for stay of the entire proceeding in the execution case and the direction as above is to remain in force till the next date of hearing of the case. 7. The limited order of stay, granted by the Court vide the impugned order dated November 29, 2025, got expired on the next date of hearing of the case, that is, January 15, 2026. Since thereafter, there is no reimposition of the said order by the Court 4 any further, as per the record. Therefore, in a way the present revision by the petitioner is infructuous now. 8. Be that as it may, let this revision be disposed of with a direction upon the learned Trial Court, that it shall consider prayer, of the present opposite party for stay of operation of the ex-parte decree as mentioned above, in future, if at all in the Misc. Case as above, in the light of the law laid down by the Court, in Dr. Abhijit Ghosh’s case (supra). 9. The Court finds no need to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Trial Court, which has already lost its force. 10. The present revision is disposed of with direction as above. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)