- (1.)This revision petition is aimed at over-setting an order of the trial court directing the plaintiff petitioner to remove the door which he has installed in the stairs which the respondents claim to be the common stairs of the houses belonging to the parties.
(2.)The petitioner brought a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents that he was the exclusive owner of the stairs which the respondents had no right to use and that they may be permanently restrained from using the same. The trial court issued an ad interim exparte injunction on 26 5. 1977 interdicting the respondents from using the stairs. On 28.5.1977, however, the said order was vacated by it after hearing, the respondents. The petitioner filed an appeal before District-Judge, Poonch against the said order, who on the petitioner's application for ad-interim stay passed the following order:
"Stay mean while."

(3.)This order was also communicated to the trial court, which on 18.6.1977 issued a notice to the respondents that its order dated 28.5.1979 had been stayed by the appellate court, and that its earlier order dated 26-5-1977 stood revived, which the respond-dents were bound to obey. In the mean-time, it appears the petitioner installed a door in the stairs with the result that the passage of the respondents was thereby blocked even otherwise. The respondents made an application under Order 39 R. 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure inviting the trial court to issue mandatory injuction against the petitioner, directing him to remove the door. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that after the appellate court had issued the aforesaid stay order, the trial court had ceased to have any jurisdiction to entertain such an application and pass any order on it This objection did not weigh with the trial court, which consequently allowed the application of the respondents, and ordered the petitioner to remove the door. It is this order which has been assailed in this revision petition.
Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Sethi has contended that the moment the appellate court of District Judge, Poonch, issued the stay order, powers of the trial court to deal with the respondents' application had been clearly taken away. The trial court, argued the learned counsel, was bound to obey the order of the appellate court, and had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondents' application and pass any order on it.