Item- 23. sg 28-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 3356 of 2026 M/s. J S Domestic Coke Fuel & Anr. Versus Koshore Kumar Gupta & Ors. Mr. Koushik Dey Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Debjani Sahu …for the petitioners Mr. Arup Krishmna Das Mr. Utsab Ghatak Mr. Rajarshi Ghosh …for the opposite parties Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellants and is directed against an order dated 20th February, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman in Title Appeal No. 9 of 2025. By the order impugned, the appeal was admitted and the trial court records were called for. Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that though a stay application has been filed by the petitioners on 22nd January, 2025, but no date for hearing of such application has been fixed. He submits that in the meantime, the decree has been put into execution and the learned Judge of the Executing Court has directed the bailiff to handover possession of the decreetal property to the opposite parties/decree-holders. Mr. Das, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that there cannot be any unconditional order of stay of the execution case and in the event this Court is minded to pass an order of stay, the same should be subject to a condition of payment of occupational charges by the petitioners to the opposite parties. 2 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the material placed. The opposite parties filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner being Title Suit No. 319 of 2001, which stood decreed by a judgment and decree dated 18th December, 2024. From the schedule of the plaint, this Court finds that the suit property is one office room and one tin shed structure. Mr. Dey learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the monthly rental was Rs.100/-. The petitioners have preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the eviction decree. If during the pendency of the said appeal, the possession of the decreetal property is handed over to the decree-holders/opposite parties, the appeal would become infructuous. In order to strike a balance between the rights of the respective parties, the petitioners are liable to pay occupation charges to the opposite parties since the petitioners are in possession of the decreetal property and any order of stay on execution case would amount to depriving the decree-holders from enjoying the fruits of the decree Considering the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of an office room and a tin shed structure and exploiting the same for commercial purpose, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners should be directed to pay a lump-sum amount towards occupation charges for the time being as the stay application is yet to be considered by the learned Judge of the Appeal Court. 3 Considering the fact that the eviction decree was passed sometime in the month of December 2024, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioners to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite parties on account of occupation charges. This civil revision application stands disposed of with the following directions: (a) The petitioners shall pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite parties towards occupation charges on or before 9th October, 2026; (b) The learned Judge of the Appeal Court is directed to take up the hearing of the stay application on the next date fixed i.e. 12th October, 2026 and the opposite parties shall be at liberty to file a written objection to the said application as well as an application praying for a direction upon the petitioners for payment of the occupation charges on or before October 9, 2026 upon serving an advance copy to the petitioner; (c) In the event the hearing of the stay application and the application for occupation charge cannot be concluded for any reason whatsoever on October 12, 2026, it will be open to the learned Judge of the Appeal Court to fix a short date of hearing of such application; (d) The learned Judge of the Appeal Court shall be free to fix any amount on account of monthly 4 occupation charges after considering the claims and counter claims of the respective parties and the payment as directed to be made by this Court hereinbefore shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by the learned Judge of Appeal Court on the stay application; (e) The learned Judge of the Appeal Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the stay application expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties; (f) There shall be an unconditional order of stay of all further proceeding in Title Execution Case No. 25 of 2025 till October 12, 2026 and in the event the amount as directed by this Court is paid by the petitioners to the opposite parties within the time limit mentioned hereinbefore, the learned trial judge shall be free to extend the interim order for such period as the learned Judge of the Appeal Court may deem fit and appropriate; (g) It is, however, made clear, that in the event the payment as directed hereinbefore, is not made within the time limit mentioned hereinbefore, this order shall automatically stand vacated without any further reference to this Court and the learned Judge of the Appeal Court as well as the Executing Court shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. 5 (h) The aforesaid payment shall be made by the petitioners to the opposite parties either by way of bank draft/demand draft or by way of electronic transfer to the bank account standing in the name of the opposite parties. If a request is made from the end of the petitioners, the opposite parties shall be obliged to furnish the particulars of the bank account in order to facilitate the electronic transfer of the aforesaid sum; Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)