18.09.2026 Item No.17 (DL) Court No.07 AJ. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION C.O. 994 of 2026 I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2026 Shankar Nath Das -Vs- Nimai Chandra Das & Ors. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mandal, Ms. Bipasha Bhattacharyya. …..for the petitioner. Mr. Gouranga Kumar Das, Mr. Bishal Maity, Ms. Tithli Piplai. …..for the respondent nos.1, 4 to 8. 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. CAN 2 of 2026 stood disposed of on August 02, 2026 with re-imposition of the order of stay that had been passed on March 20, 2026. The same may be recorded accordingly. 3. This revisional application is directed against an order dated February 05, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Baruipur, South 24- Parganas in Misc. Case No. 2 of 2026 filed in connection with Title Suit No. 132 of 2017 pending before the said Court. 4. The aforesaid Title Suit had been instituted by the opposite party nos.1 to 8 against the petitioner and the other opposite 2 parties inter alia for decrees for declaration of title and partition. 5. The said suit was decreed in preliminary form on March 21, 2025. Since such decree was passed ex parte as against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. Since the said application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefor, the petitioner also took out an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the said application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 7. The petitioner also filed an application seeking stay of all further proceedings of Title Suit No. 132 of 2017, in the meantime. 8. On February 05, 2026 when the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was fixed for hearing, the learned Trial Court instead of deciding the fate of the said application, dismissed the petitioner’s application for stay of the suit. 9. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present revisional application. 3 10. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has fallen in error in rejecting the petitioner’s application for stay on the sole ground that no order for stay from a superior forum was brought to the notice of the Court, without appreciating that the said Court itself had been approached for passing an order of stay. 11. It is further submitted that the learned Trial has disposed of the application for stay when the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was fixed for hearing. It is submitted that without disposing of the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay the petitioner’s prayer for stay has been rejected. 12. Mr. Das, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties supports the order impugned. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court was justified in passing the order rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for stay. 13. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material-on-record. 14. It is evident from the order impugned that date was fixed for hearing the petitioner’s application under Section 5 of the 1963 Act. 4 15. In such view of the matter, ordinarily, the learned Trial Court ought to have heard the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and it is only thereafter that the learned Trial Court should have proceeded to dispose of the petitioner’s prayer for stay. 16. Furthermore, the learned Trial Court could not have rejected the petitioner’s application for stay on the sole ground that no stay had been granted by any superior forum had granted stay inasmuch as, when an application for setting aside ex parte decree has been made before the Court, the said Court itself would not be powerless to grant an order of stay of all further proceedings of the suit, if a case for grant of such stay is made out. 17. In such view of the matter, the order dated February 05, 2026 is set aside. The petitioner’s application for stay is restored for being heard afresh by the learned Trial Court. 18. The learned Trial Court shall dispose of the petitioner’s application under Section 5 of the 1963 Act as well as the application for stay, in accordance with law, upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. 19. However, the pending consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for stay and the application under Section 5 of the 1963 Act, the 5 learned Trial Court shall not proceed to pass the final decree but the Partition Commissioner’s work would continue. 20. With the aforesaid observation, C.O. 994 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. The learned Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the petitioner’s applications as expeditiously as the business of the learned Court would permit and preferably within a period of two months from the next date fixed. 22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)