Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner seeks implementation of an order of demolition dated October 30, 2017.
(2.) The Municipality and the private respondents are represented.
(3.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, the private respondents preferred an appeal against the order of demolition dated October 30, 2017. In the appeal, the private respondents applied for interim stay. Upon prayer for stay being rejected, a further appeal was carried before the District Judge by way of a Miscellaneous Appeal. Prayer for stay in such Miscellaneous Appeal was rejected. Against that, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed. The same was disposed of by holding that, a second appeal does not lie against an order of demolition. The petitioner filed a revisional application challenging the refusal to grant order of stay. Such revisional application is pending. He submits that, the revisional application was mentioned at least thrice for the purpose of upgradation. The revisional application is likely to be taken up shortly. He seeks an accommodation. He relies upon (Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sachidanand Dass & Anr., 1995 Supp4 SCC 465) and submits that, the ratio laid down therein, although in a contempt petition, should also be applied in the present proceedings. The private respondents should be allowed one opportunity to move the revisional application.;