Item- A- 34. sg 30-09-2026 Ct. 6 CO 2433 of 2026 Pawan Kumar Singh Versus Amrita Ghosh Mr. Siva Prasad Ghosh Mr. Sujit Sahoo …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against the order being no. 10 dated 11th July, 2025 and order being no. 15 dated 2nd July, 2026, both passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Sealdah. By the order impugned dated 11th July, 2025, the learned Judge of the appellate court fixed the occupational charges as condition for grant of stay of operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review and/or recall of the aforesaid order which stood rejected by the order dated 2nd July, 2026. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the rate of occupation charge has been fixed at an abnormally high rate. He submits that the quantum of occupation charge should be reduced. The learned trial judge of the appeal court took note of the location of the suit property which is situated within a few minutes walking distance from bypass connector, 10 minutes from Chittaranjan Hospital, 10 minutes from Park Circus Railway Station and near to Don Bosco School, which 2 is a reputed school as well as several markets. Considering the location of the suit property, the learned judge of the appeal court, fixed the occupation charges at Rs. 14,000/- per month. An order of stay of operation of the judgment and decree amounts to depriving the decree-holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree during the pendency of the appeal challenging the eviction decree. The decree-holder is entitled to be compensated for such deprivation. The learned judge of the appeal court, after taking note of all relevant factors, fixed the occupation charges at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per month. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned judge of the appeal court in exercise of discretion. The learned judge of the appeal court was right in rejecting the prayer for recall and/or review of the order dated 11th July, 2026. At this stage, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner is a meritorious one and the petitioner is confident of success in the said appeal. It is well-settled that the merit of the appeal cannot be looked into at this stage and it is only the question of compensating the decree-holder for being deprived of enjoying the decreetal property during the pendency of the appeal on the ground of an order of stay being passed. For all the reasons as mentioned hereinabove, this 3 civil revision application stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)