C. R. No. 2040 OF 2007. ****** Present : Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. ******* Challenge in this revision petition is to the order, dated 8.2.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, staying the operation of the judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the first appellate Court, while granting stay order, should have put the respondents to terms, in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2, on the other hand, states that as the appeal is now fixed for arguments, therefore, instead of passing any order, it would be appropriate to direct the first appellate Court to decide the appeal, on the date fixed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Though the learned first appellate Court has stayed the operation of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, in all fairness, it should have put the respondents to terms, in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. However, as the appeal is now fixed for hearing on 29.1.2008, the first appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on the said date. With the above observations, the present revision petition C.R No.2040 of 2007 : 2 : stands disposed of. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 10, 2008. JUDGE `kk'