Court No. 6 (265719) 22.09.2026 (AD 9) (S. Banerjee) CO 3209 of 2026 Tapesh Saha & Ors. Vs. Utpal Kumar Das Mr. Jayanta Samanta Ms. Karunamoyee Samanta Ms. Riddhi Naskar …for the petitioners Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Oishik Chatterjee Ms. Shila Sarkar Mr. Arup Sarkar …for the opposite-party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgment-debtor and is directed against orders dated September 9, 2026 and September 10, 2026, both passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chanchal, Malda in OC Execution Case No. 5 of 2021 arising out of OC No. 132 of 2018. By the order dated September 9, 2026, the learned Judge of the executing court directed the Nazir to execute the writ by delivery of possession to the decree-holder in terms of the decree passed in OC case No. 132 of 2018. In the said order it was recorded that vide order dated May 22, 2026 on the prayer of the judgment-debtor the execution case was stayed on condition of payment of Rs. 66,800/- by the judgment-debtors in favour of the decree-holders 2 within sixty days of passing of the said order of stay and, in default of which, the stay has been directed to stand vacated automatically. When this matter was taken up for hearing on September 18, 2026, in the presence of the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party a conditional order of stay of all further proceedings in the execution case was passed till September 23, 2026 and in the event the petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 66,800/- to the decree-holders/opposite-parties together with a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of cost for non-payment of the amount within the stipulated period, the interim order shall be extended. At that stage learned advocate appearing for the opposite party prayed for an accommodation to take instruction as to in what mode such payment shall be accepted by the opposite-party. Only for such purpose this matter was directed to be placed under the heading ‘To be mentioned’ today i.e. on 22.09.2026. At the first sitting of the Court today Mr. Souvik Das, learned advocate, prayed for leave to file a review application at the instance of the opposite party without the certified copy of the order dated August 18, 2026 passed in CO 2646 of 2026 but with the server copy of the same. 3 However, when this matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the opposite-party assisted by Mr. Oishik Chatterjee, learned advocate, submits that since the matter was taken up out of turn on September 18, 2026, Mr. Chatterjee could not apprise this Court on certain facts as he was not posted with all facts at that point of time. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, however, disputes the submission of Mr. Mukherjee that CO 3209 of 2026 was taken up out of turn on September 18, 2026. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that the order dated May 22, 2026 was challenged by the opposite- party herein in CO 2646 of 2026. He submits that after noting the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in CO 2646 of 2026 that the opposite-parties therein have not complied with the direction to deposit the amount as security deposit by the impugned order, an order dated August 18, 2026 was passed and an application for review of the said order has been taken out being F No. 250 of 2026 filed on September 22, 2026. He submits that the effect of the order dated September 18, 2026 in CO 3209 of 2026 would ultimately result in taking away a valuable right which has accrued in 4 favour of the opposite-party herein by way of passage of time to execute the decree passed in the eviction suit. He further submits that instead of filing any application for extending the order of stay before the learned executing court, the petitioner could have directly approached this Court praying for extension of the order of stay. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not aware of the order dated August 18, 2026 passed in CO 2646 of 2026. He further submits that pursuant to an order dated September 18, 2026 passed in CO 3209 of 2026, an amount of Rs. 81,800/- has already been credited to the bank account of the opposite- party. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order dated September 18, 2026 the particulars of the bank account of the opposite-party was furnished to the learned advocate for the petitioner and thereafter the amount was credited to the bank account of the opposite-party. At this stage it would be relevant to note that this Court by an order dated September 18, 2026 only passed an unconditional interim order till September 5 23, 2026 with an observation observing that in the event the amount of Rs. 81,800/- is paid, the interim order shall be extended thereafter. It is not in dispute that the payment of sum of Rs. 81,800/- was made only on 21.09.2026 i.e. after the particulars of the bank account was furnished by the opposite-party to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not file any application for extension of the order of stay before the executing court. However, since an amount as indicated in the order dated September 18, 2026 has been paid and received by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that such deposit shall be retained by the opposite party for the present without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties before the executing court if any application is filed by the petitioners before the executing court praying for extension of the order of stay or for a fresh interim order as the situation may demand. Since the amount has already been paid by the petition, this Court is inclined to extended the interim order for a limited period to enable the petitioner to take steps before the learned Executing Court pursuant to this order. 6 This civil revision application stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the learned judge of the executing court on or before September 24, 2026 upon serving an advance copy of the same to the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party, praying for extension of the order of stay which stood vacated by the order dated May 22, 2026 or for fresh interim order as the case may be and if such application is filed, the learned judge of the executing court shall take up the hearing of the said application, if filed within the time limit indicated hereinbefore on the next date fixed in the execution case, i.e., on September 25, 2026 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. For the aforesaid reasons, the interim order passed by this Court on September 18, 2026 is extended till September 28, 2026 or until further order that may be passed by the learned judge of the executing court. It will be open to the executing court either to extend the interim order or pass such orders in accordance with law. It is clarified that the aforesaid deposit made and received shall be subject to the decision that may be passed by the executing court on the application 7 that may be filed by the petitioners pursuant to the liberty granted by this court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)