Sushil Harkauli, J. - (1.) IT has been pointed out that against the ex -parte temporary injunction granted by the trial Court, the petitioners -defendants filed a misc. appeal in which initially, the Incharge District Judge, Etah granted stay of injunction on 11.4.2002. It is alleged that later on, on the same date behind back of the petitioners, the order was suspended by Incharge District Judge, Etah. No reasons are mentioned. I reply to this contention, Sri V.K. Singh, representing the caveat has argued that another defendant had filed a separate appeal in which no stay was granted. Therefore, the present defendant filed appeal in which stay order was granted. When this fact was brought to the notice of the appellate Court, the appellate Court suspended its stay order.
(2.) THESE circumstances to my mind do not constitute sufficient reason for suspending the stay order. It is possible that in the earlier appeal by another defendant proper grounds may not have been taken or that the matter was not argued properly and therefore stay order was not granted. In this particular case the stay order has been granted after hearing the appeal on merits and after application of mind to the arguments advanced. Therefore stay order should not have been suspended merely on the ground that in some another appeal no stay has been granted. The matter could have been examined on an application to vacate the stay order. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order suspending the stay order dated 11.4.2002 is quashed. However since the parties are represented before this Court, therefore, they will appear before the appellate Court on 13.5.2002 alongwith certified copy of this order and the appellate Court will fix a date in that week itself and will dispose of the matter.;