Anjali Mondal v. Paritosh Pramanik

28.11.2025 SL No.9 Court No.6 (gc) CO 4019 of 2025 Anjali Mondal & Anr.

Vs.

Shri Paritosh Pramanik & Ors.

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Mr. Sounak Mandal ...for the Petitioners.

1.

The opposite parties are not represented.

2.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated September 10, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Contai.

3.

The petitioners submit that the execution case is proceeding, but the Appellate Court has not yet taken up the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4.

They pray for stay of the execution. The petitioners have suffered a money decree. It is submitted that prayer for stay of the money decree has been made and the Court is required to at least adjudicate the same so that the petitioners may get an opportunity to obtain a stay as per law, upon the conditions that the Court may deem fit and proper to impose.

5.

I do not wish to grant any order as prayed for. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Contai is directed to dispose of the application for stay within three weeks from the next date fixed, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, but allowing a contested hearing.

6.

The petitioners will communicate this order to the opposite parties and also the learned Advocates for the opposite parties appearing before the Appellate Court.

7.

Accordingly, the revisional application is disposed of. This court has not observed on the merits of the pending application.

8.

There shall be no order as to costs.

9.

Parties are to act on the server copy of this order. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)