CO/2090/2026 of SHAMBHU SHAW Vs PINTU KUMAR SHAW on 28 September 2026

Sl.7 28.09.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2090 of 2026

Shambhu Shaw -versus- Pintu Kumar Shaw

Ms. Subhangi Bhattacharya .. for the petitioner

Mr. Aritra Roychowdhury Mr. Samir Halder ..for the opposite party

Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties the main civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list. This application under Article of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellant and is directed against an order dated 2nd June, 2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barrackpore in Title Appeal No. 29 of 2026. By the order impugned the admission of the title appeal was made subject to deposit of occupational charges as fixed by the learned judge of the appellate court. Ms. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that admission of the appeal cannot be subject to condition for payment or deposit of occupational charges. She further submits that no stay application has been filed by the petitioner till date. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that in the meantime the decree has been put into execution giving rise to Title Execution Case No. 31 of 2026. He further submits that if it is the case of the petitioner that no stay application has been filed the execution case should not be stalled on the ground of mere pendency of the title appeal. The order impugned stands modified by deleting the portion directing the petitioner to deposit occupational charges @ Rs. 5,000/- per month. Other portions of the impugned order shall remain unaltered. Mere pendency of the title appeal shall not preclude the learned judge of the executing court from proceeding with the execution case. It is clarified that the Executing Court shall be free to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law subject to any order of stay that may be passed by any competent court of law. It is, however, made clear that in the event the petitioner seeks an order of stay of all further proceedings of the execution case it will be open to the opposite party to pray for imposition of any condition before the appropriate forum. With the above observations, C.O. 2090 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)