Sl.23 10.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 3074 of 2026 Sri Dilip Kumar Pan -versus- Sri Ramprasad Chabri & Anr. Mr. Nonigopal Chakraborty ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgement debtor and is directed against an order rejecting the application for stay of all further proceedings of J. Misc. Case No. 107 of 2025. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the ex parte decree. He submits that immediately after coming to know of the ex parte decree upon a copy of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure being served the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as J. Misc. Case No. 16 of 2026. He submits that pending disposal of the miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the further proceedings of the miscellaneous case under Order 21 Rule 97 be stayed. The learned judge of the executing court specifically recorded that the decree holders/opposite parties filed a 2 suit for eviction and recovery of khas possession which was decreed ex parte on 15th July, 2011. The decree was put into execution giving rise to other Execution Case No. 3 of 2013. The petitioner also did not contest the execution proceedings and several ex parte orders have also been passed in the execution proceedings. However, only on 23rd February, 2026 the petitioner has filed a miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner also filed an application for stay of all further proceedings of the J. Misc. Case No. 107 of 2025, which is an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned judge of the executing court specifically recorded that the judgement debtor i.e. the petitioner herein appeared in the execution case on 6th June, 2022 and despite having knowledge of the ex parte decree and the execution proceedings filed the miscellaneous case only on 23rd February, 2026. Thus, the learned judge of the executing court was not satisfied that the petitioner was diligent in taking steps for setting aside the ex parte decree. On such a factual finding the learned trial judge rejected the stay application. Such Factual finding could not be controverted by the learned advocate for the petitioner. 3 To the mind of this Court, the petitioner was not diligent in taking steps after the ex parte decree was passed. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the learned judge for expeditious disposal of the miscellaneous case under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If such an approach is made the learned judge shall consider the same and take steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, C.O. 3074 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)