Court No. 6 (265719) 23.09.2026 (AD 14) (S. Banerjee) CO 3024 of 2026 Kalpana Sarkar Vs. Soumen Poddar & Ors. CAN 1 of 2026 Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Ms. Debjani Sengupta Mr. Atreya Chakraborty …for the petitioner Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das Ms. Madhumita Das …for the opposite-party nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a third- party and is directed against an order being no. 153 dated August 27, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur in Misc. case No. 39 of 2026 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 20 of 2015. By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner for stay of the execution case, stood rejected. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the said application was filed in connection with an application under Order 2 21, Rules 99 to 101 of the Civil Procedure Code being Misc. Case No. 39 of 2026. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the opposite-parties submits that the petitioner who does have any right, title and interest in respect of the property in question, has filed a frivolous misc. case under Order 21, Rules 99 to 101 of the Civil Procedure Code. He submits that the execution case cannot be stalled merely on the ground that a misc. case is pending. However, after going through the order impugned this Court finds that there is no reason assigned by the learned Judge of the executing Court for rejecting the application for stay. When an application under Order 21, Rules 99 to 101 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed and the same has been registered as a misc. case, it is the duty of the learned executing court to consider the application for stay on its merit and pass a reasoned order. Merely on the ground that the decree-holder cannot be deprived from enjoying the fruits of the decree, cannot be a ground for rejecting the prayer for stay when the petitioner has filed an application for stay of the execution case on the ground of pendency 3 of a misc. case under Order 21, Rules 99 to 101 of the Civil Procedure Code. For such reason this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, order no. 153 dated August 27, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur is set aside. The application for stay filed by the petitioner stands restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur. The learned executing Court is requested to take up the hearing of the stay application and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order without affording any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. It is, however, made clear that the impugned order has been interfered with only on the ground that the same does not contain any reason and the learned Judge of the executing court shall decide the application for stay afresh being uninfluenced by the fact that this Court has interfered with the impugned order. With the above observations this revisional application stands disposed of. 4 Considering the fact that by an order being no. 154 dated August 29, 2026 police help has been allowed, there shall be an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in the executing court till the end of the month of September, 2026 or until further order, whichever is earlier. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the learned judge of the executing court for passing necessary orders. If such an approach is made, the learned judge of the executing court shall consider the same and pass orders accordingly. The application, being CAN 1 of 2026, also stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)