The order, dated 13-7-1985 is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Previously, stay was issued restraining the respondents from ejecting the petitioner from the quarter occupied by him till the decision of the main case. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed allowing 15 days to the petitioner to vacate the quarter. It has been argued that the order, dated 3-6-1985 could not be changed afterwards. Outwardly the argument appears to be forceful but in reality it has no force. True facts and circumstances in which the order, dated 3-6-1985 was passed have not been disclosed in the revision, nor during arguments. The first order was passed in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondents. His statement was that if the main case was decided within one month, he would have no objection to the stay order. Short dates of 5 days were given which show that the stay order was issued on the understanding that the case would be decided within one month but when it lingered on for the reason that a new person came forward to be impleaded as party, the stay order was changed. The petitioner took 15 days to vacate the quarter, so vide the impugned order stay was extended upto 29-7-1985 on the statement of the petitioner. Since the petitioner undertook to vacate the quarter upto 29-7-1985 and on his this statement the stay order was passed, he cannot challenge the same.
3. As a result, the revision is dismissed.