1 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Civ il Revision No. 7 / 2 01 0 Gopal Das and another …………… Revisionists. Versus Smt. Prabha Rani Sisodhiya and another ………… Respondents Hon ’ble Tar u n Agar w ala, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the revisionists. This revision has been filed questioning the order dated 17th March, 2010. It is alleged that opposite party no.1 alleging herself to be the owner and landlord of the property in question, filed a suit for eviction against opposite party no.2, which was decreed, against which civil revision was filed before this High Court, which was ultimately dismissed in the year 2007. Subsequently, the execution proceedings was initiated for the eviction of opposite party no.2 at the hands of opposite party no.1. The applicant no.1 contends that he is the actual owner of the house in question and that his tenant is applicant no.2 and, in the garb of these execution proceedings, the opposite party no.1 is trying to forcibly evict the applicant no.2. It has also come on record that when the applicant no.1 came to know about some alleged sale deed was executed in favour of opposite party no.1, a suit no.279/ 2008 was filed for cancellation of the sale deed before the trial court, which is pending consideration. Simultaneously, an application under order 21 Rule 97,99 and 101 of C.P.C. has also been filed alongwith an injunction application praying therein that the execution proceedings be stayed till the disposal of the objections filed under order 21 C.P.C.. On this application, 2 notices have been issued to the opposite party no.1 and 2. The executing court was not inclined to grant an exparte injunction and directed that the application would be heard after the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are served. The applicants being aggrieved have filed the present revision. In my opinion, no revision is maintainable against an interlocutory order. The application of the petitioner under order 21 Rule 97,99 and 107 is still pending consideration, which will be appropriately decided by the Executing Court after hearing the opposite parties. The question of staying the execution proceedings does not arise. In the event the application of the applicants is not being considered and on the other hand the execution proceedings are undertaken to evict the applicant no.2, it would be open to the applicant to move a fresh injunction application after the opposite parties are served. The civil revision is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Dated: 7.4.2010 Nishant ( Tar u n Agar w ala, J.) 3