D. B. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) -THE present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment dated 30th June, 1995 of dismissing the application under section 115a CPC filed at the instance of the present petitioner against the order No. 10 dated 13. 6. 94 passed by the Executing Court in Title Execution Case No. 6/94 rejecting his application for stay. ( 2 ) THE facts relevant for our present purpose may be stated as follows :-the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 651/86 against one Manoranjan Kar for permanent injunction against the petitioner in the Third Court of Munsif at Sealdah. The said Suit was decreed ex parte on 20th February, 1989. The defendant filed a misc. case under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC being Misc. Case No. 21/89 on 5th November, 1989. During the pendency of that Misc. case the defendant Manoranjan died on 17. 9. 92 leaving behind the present petitioner and the proforma opposite parties as his heirs and legal representatives. By reason of non-substitution of the said heirs and legal representatives within the prescribed time limit the said Misc. case No. 21/89 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 was abated on 16th December, 1992. The plaintiff opposite parties No. 1 and 2 put the ex parte decree into execution being Title Execution case No. 6/94. The present petitioner filed an application under Order 22 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the abatement and restoring the Misc. Case No. 21/89 to its file and number. On 7th June, 1994, the said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 53/94. The petitioner also filed an application for stay of the execution case till the disposal of the said Misc. Case No. 53/94. By order No. 9 dated 8th June, 1994 the Executing Court was pleased to grant an interim stay of the execution case till the disposal of the said application for stay fixing 13th June, 1994 for hearing of that application. On 13th June, 1994 the executing court upon hearing both the parties by its order No. 10 dated 13th June, 1994 was pleased to reject the said application for stay on the ground that no cost was paid by the petitioner-Judgment debtor in terms of its earlier order No. 9 dated 8. 6. 94 and that the Misc. On 13th June, 1994 the executing court upon hearing both the parties by its order No. 10 dated 13th June, 1994 was pleased to reject the said application for stay on the ground that no cost was paid by the petitioner-Judgment debtor in terms of its earlier order No. 9 dated 8. 6. 94 and that the Misc. Case No. 21/89 under Order 9 Rule 13 was no longer pending. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved the judgment debtor petitioner filed the revisional application under section 115a CPC which the learned lower appellate court was pleased to dismiss by the impugned order dated 30th June, 1995. ( 4 ) A bare perusal of the impugned judgment makes it amply clear that the lower revisional court was pleased to dismiss the revisional application only on two grounds. First, by interpreting the two orders No. 9 and 10 that were passed by the executing court on 8th June, 1994 and 13th June, 1994 respectively, the lower revisional court came to the conclusion that the executing court did really grant a conditional order of stay by its order No. 9 dated 8. 6. 94 till the disposal of the application for stay subject to the condition of the petitioner's payment of all costs incurred by the decree-holder and since the said cost was not paid on 13. 6. 94, the date on which the stay application came up for hearing, the revisional court interpreted this non-payment as a breach of the condition subject to which the stay was purported to have been granted by the executing court and accordingly the revisional court was of the view that the judgment debtor-petitioner was not entitled to any further stay. The other ground on which the learned court below based its judgment of dismissal was that the misc. case under Order 9 Rule 13 had stood already dismissed and was no-longer pending at the time when the stay was sought for. ( 5 ) UPON consideration of all the materials on record, I find that the learned lower revisional court was patently wrong on both the grounds referred to above. The operative part of the order No. 9 dated 8. 6. 94 passed by the executing court reads as under :"the writ if issued, be recalled. The Judgment-debtor to pay all costs incurred by the decree-holder. Fix 13. 6. 94 for hearing. The operative part of the order No. 9 dated 8. 6. 94 passed by the executing court reads as under :"the writ if issued, be recalled. The Judgment-debtor to pay all costs incurred by the decree-holder. Fix 13. 6. 94 for hearing. The execution is stayed till the disposal of the instant petition". ( 6 ) BY no stretch of imagination this order can be construed as an order whereby a condition can be said to have been imposed by the executing court for payment of costs for the grant and continuance of the stay. Had it been so, the executing court would have fixed a particular date for payment of the cost and would have granted an interim stay till such payment is made. But from the order itself it is clear that the stay was granted till the disposal of the application for stay. There is no default clause in the order itself in the event of non-payment of the cost. The order relating to payment of cost is obviously an order which is executable like any other order. It was evidently not an order imposing a condition subject to which the stay was supposed to continue. As such, both the learned executing court and the lower revisional court were wrong in interpreting the fact of non-payment of the cost by 13. 6. 94, the date on which the stay application was fixed for hearing as a breach of the condition of stay granted by the earlier No. 9 dated 8. 6. 94. ( 7 ) THE other ground on which the learned executing court rejected the application for stay and the learned lower revisional court rejected the application under section 115a CPC clearly reveals that there was total non-application of mind by both the courts below. Had the courts below applied their minds to the contents of the application for stay they would have discovered the stay was sought for till the disposal of the subsequent Misc. Case that is to say 53/94 which itself is a misc. case for setting aside the abatement of the earlier Misc. Case No. 21/92 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC The Misc. case 53/94 was the only misc. case that was pending at the material point of time and there was no question of pendency of the earlier misc. case No. 21/89. case for setting aside the abatement of the earlier Misc. Case No. 21/92 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC The Misc. case 53/94 was the only misc. case that was pending at the material point of time and there was no question of pendency of the earlier misc. case No. 21/89. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the lower revisional court is not at all legally sustainable and as such is required to be set aside forthwith. ( 8 ) BUT at this stage, the learned counsel for the opposite parties by filing the certified copy of Order No. 66 dated 13. 11. 98 passed in Misc. Case No. 53/94, draws my attention to the fact that by the said order the said misc. case stood dismissed on 13. 11. 98 and since the said misc. case is no longer pending the question of grant of any stay of the execution case till the disposal of the said misc. case cannot arise at all. The learned counsel for the opposite parties also filed a xerox certified copy of an order passed by this court in C. O. No. 2448/98 whereby this court directed the court concerned to hear out this particular misc. case No. 53/94 on 7. 11. 98, the date on which it was fixed for hearing without granting any adjournment whatsoever to either party. Read in the context of this order of the High Court, the order No. 66 dated 13. 11. 98 certified copy of which has been filed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, makes it clear that on behalf of the petitioner no step was at all taken on 7. 11. 98, the date on which the particular misc. case was fixed for hearing, and that even on 13. 11. 98, the date fixed for passing of the order by the learned court below, the petitioner did not take any step whatsoever. Accordingly, the court below took it granted that the petitioner was no longer interested to proceed with the misc. case and in such view of the matter dismissed the matter for non-prosecution. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner could not at all enlighten the court as to why the petitioner did not take any steps on 7. 11. 98 or why the petitioner allowed the misc. case and in such view of the matter dismissed the matter for non-prosecution. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner could not at all enlighten the court as to why the petitioner did not take any steps on 7. 11. 98 or why the petitioner allowed the misc. case to be dismissed particularly when the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution is kept pending before this High Court. The learned counsel frankly concedes that he did not have had any instructions from his client in this behalf since the time of dismissal of the particular misc. case No. 53/94. After all, if that misc. case goes, there is no reason why the execution case shall not be allowed to be proceeded with. It is for staying the execution case till the disposal of the misc. case that the petitioner has come up to approach this court to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, even though the impugned order is not legally sustainable, there is no point in granting any further stay of the execution case. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The executing court is directed to proceed with the execution case in accordance with law. The interim order is vacated. The application is disposed of accordingly. No order is made as to costs. Application disposed of .