A court exists for doing justice and it goes without saying that mere technicalities cannot stand in the way of a court of law doing substantial justice.

( 1 ) -THE instant revisional application is directed against order No. 24 dated 26th November, 1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, second court, Sealdah in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 1995.

( 2 ) THE opposite parties filed Title Suit No. 523 of 1986 in the second court of Munsif, Sealdah against the petitioner for declaration of their tenancy right under the petitioner in respect of one room of premises No. 40a, Darga Road, P. S. Baniapukur at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- payable according to English Calendar month and also for injunction. Subsequently in 1992, the petitioner landlord filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 407/92 in the self-same court against the opposite parties. Both the suits were heard analogously and the learned Munsif was pleased to decree the petitioner's suit and dismissed the opposite parties' suit. The opposite parties preferred two appeals being Title Appeals No. 89 and 91 of 1993 against the said two decrees. The two appeals were heard analogously and were dismissed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Sealdah. The degree holder petitioner put the decree into execution before the second court of Munsiff, Sealdah in Title Execution Case No. 1 of 1995. Being aggrieved, the opposite parties preferred two second appeals being second appeals Nos. 191 and 192 of 1996 against the said decree of dismissal of the first appeals before the High Court which was pleased to admit the second appeals on 8. 9. 95. On 17. 9. 96 an application for stay of the execution of the decree passed by the learned Munsiff, second court at Sealdah, filed at the instance of the appellant opposite parties in the second appeals, was heard by the High Court. During the hearing of the stay petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner decree holder that the arrear of damages calculated at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day as claimed by the decree holder petitioner for use and occupation of the disputed premises from 14th May, 1986 to 31st August, 1996 amounted to Rs. 37,600/ -. On behalf of the appellant judgment debtors, time was prayed for depositing the said arrears of damages and the High Court was pleased to grant a conditional stay by its order dated 17. 9. 96 on the following terms.-" (I) The appellants-petitioners shall deposit in the Executing Court Rs. 20,000/- within three weeks from this days and shall deposit the balance amount of Rs. 17,600/- towards the above arrears within three weeks from the date of re-opening of the civil court after puja vacation, (ii) The petitioners shall go on depositing the charge and damages for user of the suit premises from the month of September onwards month by month within 15th of the following month at the rate of Rs. 10/- per day, (iii) On breach of any such condition, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated. Otherwise, on compliance, further proceedings of the Title Execution Case concerned shall remain stayed till the disposal of the instant appeal. "

( 3 ) BY the self-same order, the High Court also gave the decree holder the liberty to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security and made it clear that this order will not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties before the High Court or before the Executing Court.

( 4 ) THE decree holder petitioner filed an application before the Executing Court for vacating the stay of the execution case alleging default on the part of the judgment debtor opposite parties in depositing the amount as directed by the High Court by its order dated 17. 9. 96. The Executing Court heard that application exparte and, on the basis of an information slip filed by the decree holder in support of his allegation of default, was pleased to hold that the judgment debtors has not been depositing the amount in terms of the order of the High Court granting the conditional stay and, in such view of the matter, was pleased to vacate the stay by order dated 31. 10. 98. The judgment