Court No. 6 (265719) 15.09.2026 (AD 16) (S. Banerjee) CO 3137 of 2026 Nasrin Bano @ Nasree Vs. Md. Imtiazul Haque Ansari & Ors. Mr. Arup Krishna Das Mr. Rajarshi Ghosh Mr. Utsab Ghatak …for the petitioner Ms. Adrisnata Chakraborty …for the opposite-parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order being no. 58 dated August 10, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Additional Court at Asansol in Title Suit No. 294 of 2020. By the order impugned, the application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for stay of all further proceedings in Title Suit No. 294 of 2020 till the disposal of the First Appeal being No. 236 of 2020, stood rejected. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a partition suit long prior to filing of the instant suit by the opposite-parties. He submits that the partition suit was dismissed by the learned trial judge and being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the 2 petitioner preferred an appeal being FAT 236 of 2020 which is still pending before this Hon'ble Court. He submits that the issue as to whether the petitioner is a cosharer in respect of the property in question, is sub-judice in FAT 236 of 2020. He submits that for such reason the learned trial judge ought to have stayed the further proceedings of the eviction suit till the disposal of the First Appeal. The opposite-parties filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of revocation of licence. The plaintiffs/opposite-parties are claiming title in respect of the suit property by virtue of a deed of conveyance being no. 5260 of the year 2013. The opposite-parties claimed to have recorded their names in the record of rights. The case made out in the plaint of Title Suit No. 294 of 2020 is that the plaintiffs/opposite-parties allowed the petitioner to stay in the suit property for a temporary period and they also promised to quit and vacate whenever plaintiffs/opposite-parties require. Alleging that the petitioner has not vacated the suit property in spite of request made by the opposite- parties, the instant suit has been filed. The petitioner filed a suit for partition claiming that the suit property is a joint property of the parties. 3 In Title Suit No. 116 of 2014 the registered deed of sale being no. 5260 of 2013 was marked as Exhibit F. The learned trial judge while deciding the Title Suit No. 116 of 2014, i.e., the suit for partition filed by the petitioner, held that the suit property is not jointly owned by the parties to the suit and they are not the cosharers in respect of the same. The petitioner cannot wriggle out such factual finding unless the decree in the partition suit is set aside. Mere pendency of a first appeal cannot operate as a stay of all further proceedings of a suit for eviction of a licensee pending before a forum which is subordinate to the High Court. The defence of the petitioner in the suit for eviction of a licensee is more or less identical to the case of the petitioner in the First appeal. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the learned trial judge was right in rejecting the prayer for stay of all further proceedings of the suit for eviction of a licensee. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 4 Accordingly, this civil revision application stands dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)