IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1390 of 2007 SURESH RAI Versus PRABHU NATH RAI & ORS ----------- 6. 28.8.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order staying further proceeding of a final decree proceedings in a title appeal filed by the opposite parties without hearing the petitioner, the contesting respondent, cannot be sustained. Mr. Sandip Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, would submit that as the court below had found it urgent to stay operation of the final decree proceeding, such an order came to be passed only till return of the rule in the appeal which had already been issued. Ordinarily such submission on behalf of the opposite parties could have been accepted but taking into account that the appeal was registered on 17.5.2007 and the notices were issued to the petitioner, the contesting respondents, asking them to appear on 10th August, 2007, if there was any such pressing urgency the court below ought to have at least indicated in the order. The 2 impugned order does not indicate any such urgency and accordingly, the court below has committed jurisdictional error in passing an order of stay without hearing the petitioner, the contesting respondent, in the appeal. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below, the court of appeal, for considering the application filed by the opposite parties with regard to grant of stay after hearing the petitioner. This application is, accordingly, allowed with the aforementioned observation and direction. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/