IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 778 (M/S) of 2006 1- Bishambar Lal 2- Satish Kumar 3- Bhoj Raj 4- Tilak Raj All sons of Karan Chand, 5- Vinay Kumar 6- Nitin Kumar (both minor) s/o late Surendra Kumar. Through month and natural guardian, Smt. Anita Rani W/o Late Surendra Kumar All R/o Village-Simla Pistaur, Pargana-Rudrapur, Tehsil-Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar….petitioners Versus 1. Zila Up Sanchalak Chakbandi, Udham Singh Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Dharam Chand S/o Shri Ram Chand, 3. Raj Kumar s/o Shri Dharam Chand, Both R/o Village-Kailashpur, Tehsil-Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar …Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2. Dated 22.6.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon,J. By the present writ petition the petitioner ahs prayed for a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 7.6.2006 by which the interim stay order dated 1.5.2006 has been discontinued. Briefly stated, according to the case of petitioner the parties entered into a compromise on 2.7.1996, thereafter the respondents No.2 and 3 preferred an appeal before the consolidation Officer. The appeal was decided by the order dated 13.4.2006. The petitioner has preferred a revision, and the revisional Court has granted the stay order on 11.5.2006 to the following effect:- fo}ku vf/koDr mifLFkr gSa mUgksaus voxr djk;k fd ;|fi i=koyh fn0 31-5-06 ds fy, fu;r gSa fdUrq ;fn v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns’k dks fLFkfxr ugh fd;k x;k rks tehu [kqnZ@cqnZ dj nh tk,xhA i=koyh dks v/;;u fd;k U;k;kfgr esa vxyh fu/kkZfjr frfFk 31-5-06 rd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns’k fn0 13-4-06 LFkfxr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh 31-5-06 dks izLrqr gksA Grievance of the petitioner is that without any rhyme and rearm, the order has not been extended. The orders was passed to the following effect:- mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk mifLFkr gSA fn0 11-5-06 dks fuxjkuh izk0i= ds lkFk lfxu vkns’k pkgk x;k FkkA ml frfFk dks fuxkuhdrkZ i{k gh mifLFkr FkkA vUrfjr vkns’k ds :i esa fn0 31-5-06 rd ds fy, lfxu vkns’k fn;k x;k FkkA ml le; bl U;k;ky; ds le{k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ugh FkhA vkt mHk; i{k ds rdksZ vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh ds v/;;u ls ;g Li’V gksrk gS fd lfxu vkns’k fn0 11-5-06 dks tkjh j[kus@ c<+kus dk dksbZ fof/kd vkSfpR; ugha gSA mHk; i{k dh lgefr ls fn0 28-6-06 cgl gsrq fu;r dh tkrh gS ftlls i=koyh dk Hkh?kz fuLrkj.k gks ldsA The need of society is that there should be justice oriented approach and the appeal should not be rejected only on the ground of technicalities. The Apex Court held in (2001) 8 SCC 151, M.S. Grewal Vs. Deep Chand Sood as under:- “Law courts will loss their efficacy if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the society-technicalities there might be many but the justice- oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the bias of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to out weight the course of justice” Heard the parties, the ends of justice requires that the revision is directed to be decided within a period of one month and during that period parties are directed to maintain status-quo. Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Dated 22.6.2006 (Rajesh Tandon, J.)