The court emphasized the necessity for fresh hearings by the lower court when substantial claims are contested without supporting evidence.

Mr. Dipankar Aditya Mr. Uttiya Roy Ms. Aishwarya Priya Raha …for the petitioner Mr. Amitabha Ghosh …for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the appellant in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2015 and is directed against order no. 6 dated June 24, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Serampore, Hooghly in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2015. By the order impugned the learned judge of the first appellate court directed the petitioner herein to pay occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month with effect from the date of the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial judge as a condition for grant of stay of all further proceedings of the title execution case.

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit property is a tile-shed shop-room and is in a dilapidated condition and the market rate of rent of such property cannot be Rs.

3,000/- per month.

Learned advocate appearing for the opposite party, however, submits that the shop-room is measuring about more than 150 square feet and the petitioner is exploiting the same for commercial purpose and the occupation charge fixed by the learned judge of the first appellate court is a reasonable amount.

However, taking note of the fact that the parties did not produce any materials in support of their respective claim and counter-claim with regard to the occupation charges, this court is of the considered view that the learned judge of the first appellate court should be directed to hear out the said application afresh subject to certain conditions.

If on or before August 4, 2025 the petitioner pays a consolidated amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the opposite party, the application for stay filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, 2^nd Court at Serampore, Hooghly, which was disposed of by the impugned order, shall stand revived and the learned Additional District Judge, 2^nd Court at Serampore, Hooghly shall take up the hearing of such application on the next date fixed and shall decide the same afresh as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

It will be open to the respective parties to produce materials in support of their respective claims and counter-claims with regard to assessment of occupation charges.

The amount which the petitioner has been directed to pay by this order shall be adjusted against the amount of occupation charges that may be fixed by the learned judge of the first appellate court after hearing the parties in terms of this order.

CO 2509 of 2025 stands disposed of. The impugned order is set aside.