1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-1-1998 whereby the First Appellate Court while admitting the appeal, granted stay order as prayed in I.A. II filed before it.

2. I put the basic question to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner how revision is maintainable from this order as stay order does not amount to a case decided. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner emphatically tried to argue that order is revisable.

3. On behalf of the respondent, my attention has been invited to a decision of this Court in the case of Katari Thippanna v S. Hastimul and Another, this Court has very clearly held that an order granting stay or vacating stay does not amount to a case decided.

4. As such, in my opinion, as the order impugned does not amount to a case decided, the revision is misconceived. No doubt, it was open to the applicant at that time to have filed an application for vacation of stay order. Anyway, revision petition being misconceived, it is dismissed herewith. Interim order, if any is vacated.