CO/243/2026 of KRISHNA PAL AND ANR. Vs NEELAM KAUR on 21 September 2026

1. The learned counsel representing the petitioners/landlords submits that the lis involves eviction of a tenant from the suit property and the said eviction suit has been decreed ex parte against the defendant.

2. Subsequent to which the opposite party/tenant preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 which was registered as a Misc. Case and has been allowed.

3. Thereafter through the impugned order passed in Ejectment Appeal No.

of the tenant/opposite party has been granted order of stay of the impugned judgment and decree passed in Ejectment Case No.65 of 2019 and stay of all proceedings in Execution Case No. 69 of 2025, subject to payment of occupational charge of Rs.8,000/- per month which the tenant is paying.

4. He further submits that this impugned order ought not to have been passed staying the execution proceeding as because vide an earlier order dated 12.09.2025, an application for stay of the proceeding was rejected, as such the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata applies. He further submits that in the alternative, the petitioner/landlord prays for early disposal of the Ejectment appeal.

5. As regards to the issue of res judicata, the said issue was not raised at the time of hearing of the application praying for stay of the proceeding and in respect of which the impugned order has been passed.

6. So an issue which has not been raised at the time of hearing before the Trial Court cannot be agitated herein, as such the issue of res judicata is not entertained.

7. As regards the early disposal of the ejetement appeal, it transpires from the record that the ejectment appeal is of the year 2025 only. As such, this Court is not in a position to entertain the said application seeking early disposal of the ejectment appeal.

8. The present civil revisional application is disposed of being rejected.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)