- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. The respondent No. 2 filed original suit No. 15 of 1999 against the petitioner. According to the petitioner this was decreed ex-pane on 1 -8-2000. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same. The Additional Com missioner entertained the appeal and granted interim order by the order dated 5-10-2000. This interim order was ex tended from time to time and lastly was extended on 12-1-2001, and judgment was reserved on 19-1-2001. Subsequently respondent No. 2 filed a transfer applica tion No. 49 of 2000- 2001 before respon dent No. 1 and obtained stay of further proceedings before the Additional Com missioner on 27-3-2001. He also filed a revision No. 1c/2000-2001 against the order dated 12-1- 2000, in which he ob tained the order staying the operation of Additional Commissioner dated 12-1- 2001 by which the stay order of the petitioner was last extended. Hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Subodh Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner, standing Coun sel for respondent No. 1 and Sri K. G. Srivastava for respondent No. 2. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is decided finally at this stage. According to the petitioner the suit of respondent No. 2 was decreed ex-parte on 1-8-2000 and the Additional Commis sioner while entertaining the appeal passed interim order on 5-10-2000 which is as follows: 'heard. Put up with file for hearing on the point of admission on 22-11-2000. In the mean time, operation and effect of the order and execution of decree under appeal shall remain stayed. Status quo on the spot regarding posses sion etc. shall strictly be maintained till 22-11-2000. Both the parties are restrained from sell ing, making any construction destroying or changing the shape of land in dispute in any manner till 22-11-2000. Sd/- Additional Commissioner Ely Div. 95. 10. 2000' This interim order was extended from time to time. Thereafter the judg ment was also reserved on 19-2-2001. This judgment could not be delivered as respondent No. 2 has obtained stay order for respondent No. 1. Once respondent No. 2 had obtained the stay of the further proceedings before the Additional Com missioner then respondent No. 1 had no justification to grant the interim order on 10-4- 2000 staying the operation of the order dated 12-1-2000. This will permit respondent No. 2 to proceed with the ex ecution of his decree without any adjudica tion of the petitioners appeal. This is il legal. The order dated 12-1-2001 passed by respondent 1 in revision is quashed.
(3.) THE parties may appear before respondent No. 1 on 7-3-2001. He may decide the transfer application filed by respondent No. 2. It is made clear that till disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner the stay order granted on 5-10-2000 shall continue. THE revision filed by respondent No. 2 stands dismissed. With these observations writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed. .;