Kailash Nath Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K.C. Jauhari and learned Counsel for the opposite parties Sri K.B. Sinha, Opposite Party No. 3, Kailash Chandra Rastogi had filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner Madan Gopal Nigam. This suit was contested by the defendants -petitioner. After taking evidence of parties, the Trial Court had decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.1985. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner Madan Gopal Nigam had filed revision on 16.11.1985. An application for stay was also filed by the petitioner in which the following order was passed: - - Issue notice fixing 19.12.1985 for disposal. Meanwhile the eviction of the applicant is hereby stayed provided he deposits the whole of the decretal amount in the Lower Court within 12 days. It appears that the petitioner Madan Gopal deposited only a sum of Rs. 913 on 30.11.1985. He filed a representation on 10th March, 1986 stating that he had deposited the entire decretal amount in compliance of the order of stay. This representation and other papers were considered by the learned lower Revisional Court (IV Additional District Judge, Lucknow). It was observed that the revisionist -petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 4809 as shown in Annexure No. 1(C -16) whereas Rs. 7256.80 was required to be deposited hence the terms of stay order were not complied with. Learned lower Revisional Court, therefore, vacated the order of stay and fixed 9.3.1986 has been challenged in this writ petition. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that since the case is listed before the learned lower Revisional Court on 9.5.1986 for hearing arguments on merits, there is no necessity to make probe into the matter as to whether the petitioner had deposited the entire decretal amount in terms of the stay order or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the decree has not yet been executed although the order of stay has been vacated. This fact is not denied by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that he undertakes not to execute the decree till 9th May, 1986. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has no objection in the hearing and disposal of the revision on merits by the learned lower Revisional Court on 9.5.1986.
(2.) IN view of the above, I direct that the learned lower Revisional Court should hear the revision on merits on 9.5.1986 peremptorily and the hearing in the revision will not be adjourned. Till the said date the execution of the decree will not be made by the decree -holder Sri Kailash Chandra Rastogi. In case adjournment is sought for on behalf of the petitioner this order of stay shall stand vacated and the decree -holder will be entitled to get the decree executed. In case adjournment is sought for in the revision by opposite party No. 3, the execution of decree shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, in the revision but long adjournment in the case will not be given at the instance of the parties. The writ petition stands disposed of in view of the observations made above.;