JUDGMENT : MADHUMATI MITRA, J. 1. This F.M.A. is directed against an order dated 07.06.2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 62 of 2005 under Section 4 of the Partition Act arising out of Title Suit (Partition) No. 88 of 2004 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st Court Krishnagar, Nadia. 2. During the pendency of the present F.M.A. the appellants had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as C.A.N. 5103 of 2017, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence as mentioned in the annexure to the said application. 3. At the time of consideration of the said application being C.A.N. 5103 of 2017 on 05.12.2018, a doubt arose in the mind of the Court regarding the maintainability of the present appeal being F.M.A. No. 655 of 2008 particularly on the question whether the failure on the part of the defendants to deposit the valuation amount as determined by the learned Court below within the stipulated period made the impugned order non-enforceable in the eye of law. 4. Learned Advocates for Appellants and Respondents made their submissions on the point of maintainability of the present appeal. 5. The few facts which we propose to set out for the purpose of understanding and appreciating the question of maintainability of the present appeal are as under:- "In the year 2004 the present respondents filed a suit praying for partition of the suit property as they had purchased certain portion of the same and became co-owners. The said suit was decreed in preliminary form on 10th August, 2005 as mentioned in the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. i.e. C.A.N. 5103 of 2017. Defendants had prayed for an order of pre-emption in respect of the share of the plaintiffs by filing an application under Section 4 of the Partition Act before the Trial Court. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 62 of 2005. Learned Trial Court allowed the said Misc. Case under Section 4 of the Partition Act in favour of the defendants by order dated 07.06.2007." 6. The operating portion of the said order of the Learned Trial Judge was as under:- "That the instant misc. case be, and the same is, hereby allowed on contest subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 19,77,400/- by the defendants/petitioners in favour of the plaintiffs/ O.Ps. The operating portion of the said order of the Learned Trial Judge was as under:- "That the instant misc. case be, and the same is, hereby allowed on contest subject to deposit of a sum of Rs. 19,77,400/- by the defendants/petitioners in favour of the plaintiffs/ O.Ps. but without any order as regards to costs. It is hereby declared that the defendants/petitioners are entitled to pre-empt the share of the plaintiffs/O.Ps. in the suit property subject to the condition that the defendants/petitioners pay to the plaintiffs/O.Ps. or deposit in Court in their names a sum of Rs. 19,77,400/- within a period of one month from this day, in default whereof the instant misc. case shall stand dismissed." 7. It is necessary to unravel the underlying intendment of the impugned order. 8. It would appear at a glance that the impugned order was a conditional order and it would become absolute only if the amount as determined by the Court was deposited within the time as fixed by the Court. 9. From the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties it is clear that no such amount as determined by the Court to pre-empt the share of the plaintiffs had been deposited in the Court in compliance with the direction of the learned Trial Court dated 07.06.2007. 10. Appellants/Defendants challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned order by preferring the present appeal mainly on the ground that the valuation of their share as determined by the learned Trial Court was not correct. The appeal was admitted after condonation of delay by Division Bench of this Court. On 30.06.2008 an interim order of stay for a period of four weeks was passed by this Court. Thereafter on 24.04.2009 the said application for stay of impugned order was allowed and the respondents were restrained from executing the order dated 07.06.2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 62 of 2005 arising out of the Title Suit No. 88 of 2004 pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court Krishnagar, Nadia, till disposal of the appeal. 11. Impugned order was passed on 07.06.2007 specifically stipulating the time for payment or deposit of the amount and indicating the consequences for non-payment/non-deposit of the amount within the said stipulated time. 12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has contended that the impugned order of pre-emption passed in Misc. 11. Impugned order was passed on 07.06.2007 specifically stipulating the time for payment or deposit of the amount and indicating the consequences for non-payment/non-deposit of the amount within the said stipulated time. 12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents has contended that the impugned order of pre-emption passed in Misc. Case under Section 4 of Partition Act stood dismissed due to non-compliance with the direction of the learned Trial Court. He has vigorously argued that the defendants/appellants had failed to discharge their obligation to pay the price of the share of the plaintiffs/respondents which rendered the Misc. Case under Section 4 of the Partition Act dismissed and they are not entitled to get any benefit on the basis of the order of learned Trial Court. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the provisions as contained in Order XX Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 50 . 13. After going through the provisions of Order XX Rule 14 C.P.C. and the decision cited at Bar, we find force in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/ respondents and we are of the view that the law on this point is quite explicit. 14. From the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties it appeared that deposit had not been made in terms of the impugned order and the time for deposit of payment had not been extended. As a consequence, in view of the order of the learned Trial Judge, the misc. case under Section 4 of the Partition Act stood dismissed. The impugned order lost its force and became non-enforceable after expiry of one month. In this connection it would not be out of place to mention that in order to take the benefit of Section 4 of the Partition Act the defendants/petitioners are under an obligation to pay to the stranger transferors such value for their share as may be determined by the Court within the time as fixed by the Court. 15. It is well settled that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as stay on the order appealed against nor on the proceeding in the Court below. There must be a specific prayer for grant of stay on proceedings or on the execution of the order appealed against. 15. It is well settled that mere filing of an appeal does not operate as stay on the order appealed against nor on the proceeding in the Court below. There must be a specific prayer for grant of stay on proceedings or on the execution of the order appealed against. Admittedly no prayer for stay of impugned order was made within the time stipulated by the learned Trial Judge. In this connection reliance may be placed on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Madan Kumar vs. District Magistrate, (2009) 9 SCC 79 . In paragraph 14 of the said judgment it has been clearly spelt out that mere filing of a petition, appeal or suit, would be itself not operate as stay until specific prayers in this regard is made and orders thereon are passed. 16. Turning to the facts of the present case, let it be recalled that learned Trial Judge allowed the prayer of the defendants to pre-empt the share of the plaintiffs on deposit of Rs. 19,77,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand and Four Hundred) within a period of one month from the date of the order dated 07.06.2007 by the defendants and at the time of passing the impugned order learned Trial Judge made it clear that the Misc. Case under Section 4 of the Partition Act for pre-emption would be dismissed if the deposit was not made within the time framed by the Court. 17. The impugned order was neither stayed nor extended while it was in force. As a result due to non-payment/non deposit of the valuation of the share of the plaintiffs within the stipulated time, the defendants lost their right to pre-empt the share of the plaintiffs on the basis of the impugned order. In fact, the impugned order lost its force before filing of F.M.A. 18. We have considered all the submission and rival submission regarding maintainability of the appeal and come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 07.06.2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 62 of 2005 arising out of Title Suit No. 88 of 2004 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court Krishnagar, Nadia lost its force before filing of the present appeal and passing of order of stay by this Court. Due to efflux of time, the Misc. Case which had been allowed conditionally against the plaintiffs was dismissed. Due to efflux of time, the Misc. Case which had been allowed conditionally against the plaintiffs was dismissed. As such the appeal has lost its merit. We do not find any reason to consider the said impugned order on merit as it has no force at all and is not maintainable. 19. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court with a request to proceed with the Title Suit No. 88 of 2004 and dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Re: C.A.N. No. 5103 of 2017 20. This is an application for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. in connection with F.M.A. No. 655 of 2008. The said appeal has been dismissed. As such, the present C.A.N. also becomes infructuous and no order requires to be passed. I agree - Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.