Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Notice need not be issued to the respondents in view of the order being passed herein.

3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.9.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffar Nagar, in Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2013 (Aalam Ali Khan and others v. Smt. Anjul and others) whereby the stay application paper No. 7-C filed by the petitioners alongwith the appeal has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, AIR 1997 SC 856 and Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., 1983 AWC 121, to submit that when an appeal is admitted against an order then an interim protection should be given to the appellant so as to avoid any adverse civil consequences affecting the parties since the impugned order in the appeal is yet to be adjudicated by the Appellate Court.

5. Learned counsel states that Execution Case No. 18 of 2003 arose out of an appellate decree dated 22.5.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar in Civil Appeal No. 466 of 1998. According to Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners were not parties in those proceedings and they filed an application dated 30.5.2013 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, however, the said application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was rejected by the Executing Court by its order dated 31.7.2013 where against they preferred the instant Appeal No. 94 of 2013 and filed an application paper No. 7-C for grant of interim relief.

6. He states that the Appellate Court while entertaining and admitting the appeal has refused to grant any interim protection for invalid reasons. Sri Nipun Singh states that refusal to grant interim protection by the Appellate Court is only for the reason that there are many respondents in the appeal and they have to be heard. He states that this is not a ground on which the interim protection application can be refused by the Appellate Court after admitting the appeal.

7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, it appears that by the order dated 31.7.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 18 of 2003 the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed by the petitioners was rejected. While dismissing the said application it was held that the petitioners are not in possession over the land in question. The Appellate Court while considering the interim application against the said judgment of the Executing Court was of the view that an ex parte interim order should not be granted during pendency of the appeal since caveat has been filed and further held that no grounds have been made out for staying the execution proceedings. The said view of the Appellate Court is quoted hereunder :

“ esjs }kjk mDr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa dk llEeku ifj’khyu fd;k x;kA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vihy ;k fuxjkuh ds ntZ gksus ds le; vihyh; U;k;ky; dks i{kdkjksa ds vf/kdkjksa dks /;ku esa j[kuk pkfg, vkSj voj U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dk fdz;kUo;u LFkfxr lkekU;r% fd;k tkuk pkfg, tks fd vihyh; U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk esa Hkh gSA ijUrq izLrqr izdj.k esa ewy okn lu 1981 dk Fkk vkSj mlesa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds fu”iknu dh dk;Zokgh la0 03 lu 2001 ls yfEcr gSA vihykFkhZx.k }kjk fu”iknu U;k;ky; ds le{k viuh vkifRr U/o 21 fu;e 97 lh-ih-lh- o”kZ 2003 esa izLrqr dh Fkh ftlds fuLrkj.k esa Hkh 10 o”kZ yx x;s gSA bl izdj.k esa jsLiksMsUV nhik }kjk dsfo;V Hkh izLrqr dh x;h gS vkSj 5 fjLiksMsUV bl vihy esa i{kdkj gS ;fn ,di{kh; :i ls LFkxu dk vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;k tkrk gS rks fu”iknu dh dk;Zokgh fudV Hkfo”; esa iw.kZ ugha gks ldsxhA ,slh n’kk esa fu”iknu dh dk;Zokgh dks jksds tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj bl Lrj ij ;g U;k;ky; ugha ikrh gSA vr% izk0i= x&7 bl Lrj ij rnuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

i=koyh okLrs cgl fnukad 18&10&13 dks is’k gksA jsLiksUMsUVl ds fo:) uksfVl