Bhargava, J.—This is an application in revision by Udairam and Bahadur against their conviction under sec. 447 of the Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- each.

2. The dispute between the parties relates to Khasra No. 1233 situate in village Kohrana, District Alwar. It appears that Sheochand complainant had obtained a decree for recovery of possession of this and two other fields against Udairam. In execution of that decree a warrant for delivery of possession was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Behror. Before the warrant could be executed, Bahadur who is the brother of Udairam instituted a suit for declaration against Sheochand and in that suit obtained an ex-parte order of temporary injunction restraining the decree-holder from interfering with his possession over the said fields. The order of injunction was also issued from the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror.

The order regarding delivery of possession was to be executed through the Tehsildar, Behror. It appears that Udairam appeared before the Tehsildar and apprised him of the order of temporary injunction issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror against Sheochand on which the Tehsildar on 15th September, 1959 issued an order directing the Girdawar Qanugo not to deliver possession to Sheochand untill further orders. Shri Basant Visharad Girdawar Qanugo who was examined as a prosecution witness admits that he had received information that a temporary injunction had been issued against Sheochand restraining him from taking possession. However, on 20th September, 1959 the Girdawar Qanugo executed the warrant for delivery of possession and Sheochand was actually put in possession of Khasra No. 1233. Thereafter Udairam and Bahadur forcibly and unlawfully took possession of the field on 14th October, 1959.

3. A report of this incident was made to the police and after investigation a challan was submitted against Udairam and Bahadur u/sec. 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charge and also the fact of delivery of possession to Sheochand on 20th September, 1959. Bahadur stated that he was in possession of the field.

4. The learned Magistrate who tried the case after considering the evidence held that Sheochand was in possession of the field on 14th October, 1959 and was forcibly dispossessed by the accused on that date. He, therefore, convicted both the accused under sec. 447 of the Indian Penal Code. An appeal was preferred against this judgment, but the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar also rejected it.

5. The main contention which has been raised in this revision is that possession alleged to have been delivered to Sheochand on 20th September, 1959 was void in law as it was given after a temporary injunction had been issued against him restraining him from interfering with the possession of Bahadur. A good number of cases were cited before me in support of the proposition that when a stay order is passed by the executing itself or by some superior court staying the execution of the decree a sale held after the stay order is invalid. With the exception of one case i.e., Shri Mandar Das Vs. Atma Ram(l) the remaining cases are clearly distinguishable because in all those cases either the order was passed by the executing court itself directing its officer to stay further proceedings in execution of the decree or the orders were issued by the appellate court under Order 41, r. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the lower court to stay the execution of the decree. There can be no doubt that when a superior court directs the stay of execution pending in the lower court the jurisdiction of the lower court to execute the decree is suspended and all proceedings taken after the stay order would be invalid. In the present case no such order was passed but a temporary injunction was issued against the decree holder not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in the other case. There is a clear distinction b