D/L- 12 01/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 4577 of 2025 Sri Barun Goswami & Anr. Vs. Sri Pallab Kumar Chattopadhyay & Ors. Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra Mr. Jaydip Basu ….for the petitioners Mr. Narayan Ch. Ghosh ….for the opposite parties Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the respective parties the main civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgment debtor and is directed against the orders dated August 30, 2025 and December 6, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 5th Court at Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Ejectment Execution Case No.18 of 2024. By the order dated August 30, 2025 the learned judge of the executing court passed an order of stay of all further proceedings of the execution case subject to compliance of certain conditions as indicated in the said order. Alleging that the petitioners have not complied with such direction, the opposite parties approached the learned judge of the executing court and the executing court by an order dated 2 December 6, 2025 vacated the order of stay passed by the court on August 30, 2025. The opposite parties filed a suit for eviction which was decreed ex parte. The petitioners filed a Misc. Case under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. Since in the meantime the decree was put into execution giving rise to Ejectment Execution Case No.18 of 2024, the petitioners approached the learned executing court by filing an application for stay of all further proceedings of the execution case. The learned judge of the executing court passed an order directing stay of the application of the execution case subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as indicated in the order dated August 30, 2025. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have deposited the current occupation charges and with regard to the arrears a portion thereof has already been deposited. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that since the petitioners have failed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated August 30, 2025, the learned judge of the executing court was justified in vacating the order of stay. As recorded hereinbefore, admittedly the petitioners have not deposited the entire amount of the arrear occupation charges. Since the order of stay of all further proceedings of the execution case was a conditional order and such conditions have not complied with, the learned 3 judge of the executing court was right in vacating the said order. This Court does not find any infirmity with the order impugned warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. With the aforesaid observations, CO 4577 of 2025 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)