CRP 156/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr CK Sarma Baruah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as w ell as Mr BK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 7. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in TS No.98 of 2009 and the respond ent in Misc Appeal No.6/2009 by the present application is challenging the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kamrup at Guwahati i n Misc(J) Case No.193/09 filed by the present opposite parties in the aforesaid appeal, whereby and where-under the case has been fixed on 21.9.04 for objection , while issuing notice to show cause as to why the impugned order shall not be s tayed. By the said order, it has further been directed that the petitioner shall not be disturbed in respect of the suit land. Mr CK Sarma Baruah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submit ted that immediately after passing of such order an objection has been filed on 21.4.2009 against the interim order passed in the said Misc Case and the learned Court below though kept the said objection on the case record, has not disposed of the same, thereby allowing to continue the interim direction issued vide ord er dated 6.4.2009, in spite of the fact that the Guwahati Development Authority vide communication dated 23.3.2009 has directed the present opposite party No.5, who is represented by Mr BK Goswami, learned senior counsel, not to proceed wit h any construction. Mr Sarma Baruah, therefore, submits that the learned court b elow may be directed to consider and dispose of the application filed on 21.4.09 , expeditiously and also in the meanwhile to restrain the opposite party No.5 he rein not to proceed with any construction. Mr BK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 5, has submitted that in fact the objection filed by the present petitioner on 21. 4.09 has been fixed for hearing today. According to senior counsel, the learned court below by the impugned order dated 6.4.09 has not stayed the order of statu s-quo passed on 2.4.09 by the learned trial court and what has been directed by the learned appellate court by the interim order is not to disturb the appellant s before the learned court below in their possession. The learned senior counsel has submitted that he has no instruction relating to the communication dated 23 .3.2009 issued by the GMDA. It appears from the impugned order dated 6.4.09 passed by the learned Ad dl. District Judge that the learned Court below while issuing the notice on the Misc Application for stay has directed that the possession of the applicants bef ore the said Court should not be disturbed. The learned court below has not pass ed any order staying the order of status-quo passed by the learned trial court, which has been accepted by Mr BK Goswami, learned senior counsel for the opposit e party Nos.1 to 5, during the course of his argument as indicated above. It als o appears that the GMDA vide communication dated 23.3.2009 has directed the pres ent opposite party No.5 to stop all development activities until the report from the revenue authority is received for taking a final decision. Be that as it may, since the objection has been filed by the present pet itioner against the order dated 6.4.09, the same is required to be heard and dis posed of, as expeditiously as possible. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a directi on to the learned Addl.District Judge, Kamrup to take up the objection filed by the present petitioner on 21.4.09 and to decide the same within a week from toda y, if not done today, as the matter has been fixed before him for consideration today. For this period, the order dated 6.4.09 passed by the learned Addl.Distri ct Judge shall continue. However, the present opposite party No.5 shall not rais e any construction of whatsoever nature on the land in question, during that per iod. The revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.