V. S. MALIMATRI, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant has challenged in this appeal presented under S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the order of the learned Single Judge, made on the 17th of September, 1981, in WP No. 12616 of 1981. There is also a prayer for confirming the order dated the 30th of June 1981.

( 2 ) THE appellant was an applicant for grant of occupancy rights for which purpose he had made an application under s. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 before the Land Tribunal, byadgi. The Tribunal by its order dated the 28th of May, 1981, rejected the application of the appellant for grant of occupancy rights. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant was not a tenant, but was only cultivating the land in his capacity as a mortgagee There is no other direction. After rejecting the application of the appellant, the Tribunal has not issued any further directions.

( 3 ) THE order of the Tribunal rejecting the appellant's application is challenged in wp No. 12616 of 1981. Whep the writ petition came up before the learned Single judge on 30th June, 1981, rule was issued and ad interim order staying the operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal dated the 28th of May, 1981 was granted. When the third respondent, the owner of the land moved for vacation of the said ex parte interim order, the learned Single judge, after hearing both the parties, made an order on 17-9 1981 vacating the ad interim order of stay granted on the 30th of June, 1981.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, dated the 17th of september, 1981, the appellant has come up in appeal. The only question that has to be considered in this appeal is : whether the learned Single Judge was right in vacating the ad interim order of stay granted on the 30th of June, 1981 ? as already stated, by an order dated the 30th of June, 1981, the learned Single judge, had granted ad interim order staying the operation of the order of the Land tribunal, dated the 28th of May, 1981, challenged in the writ petition. As the order of the Tribunal is one rejecting the ippellant's application, the question of staying the operation of such an order does not at all arise. We say so, because on rejection of the appellant's application, no further direction was given by the Tribunal which could be executed or enforced. As there is no operative direction in the order of the Tribunal, the question of staying the operation of the order of the Tribunal, does not arise. Interim orders are granted in aid of the final relief to be granted in the case. We fail to see how stay of rejection of the application will aid the final relief to be granted in the case. If stay is not granted, the petitioner will not suffer any substantial injury. Possession of the parties is not affected by the rejection of the application. If any party tries to disturb the possession of another, appropriate interim relief in the nature of injunction may be granted. If the circumstances justify and if it is just and convenient, an order appointing a receiver may be granted. If in pursuance of the indings of the Tribunal, any other proceedings are taken, such proceedings may be stayed. If the entries in the Record of Rights are changed on the basis of the findings of the Tribunal, it is open to the aggrieved party to challenge the same before the higher authorities. They will have to be corrected and brought in tune with the final order in the case. The possibility of change in the record of rights does not entitle the party to secure an order of stay. Though the Court may have power to issue different types of interim orders, it should not issue an interim order which is not appropriate to the situation. In our opinion, issuing of stay order in such a case, is not appropriate to the situation. The position is analogus to the dismissal of a suit without any decree for costs. When a suit is dismissed without costs, it is impossible to say that the appellate Court can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document