1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1583/08 Gaindi Lal vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Date of order : 21/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahesh Gupta for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 18.1.2008 whereby the application of the petitioner for proceeding against the respondents under Order 39 Rule 2A was deferred for being considered at the time of final disposal of the revision petition. Grievance of the petitioner is from that part of the order whereby the learned Board of Revenue has decided not to extend the interim order of status quo passed in favour of the petitioner and for alleged violation of which the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was filed. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed revision petition against the order of the Divisional Commissioner and that of the Revenue Appellate Authority 2 which was admitted by the Board of Revenue on 18.10.2007. By the self same order, the parties were directed to maintain status quo upto 16.11.2007. By subsequent order passed on 16.11.2007, the status quo was extended upto 11.1.2008. When the status quo order was violated by the respondents, the petitioner separately filed application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC and the matter was then proceeded on that application. It was in these circumstances that when the matter was listed on 11.1.2008 and thereafter deferred to 18.1.2008. Due to inadvertence, however, the interim order of status quo was not extended further on 11.1.2008 and the matter was next listed on 18.1.2008. It was argued that the Board of Revenue did not by due application of mind decide either to continue or discontinue the status quo and therefore that part of the impugned order, by which the interim order of status quo has not been extended after 11.1.2008, while directing that the matter would be heard finally rather than extending interim order, is liable to be set aside. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the 3 petitioner and perusing the impugned order, I find that the impugned order does not make it evident that when the interim order of status quo was passed by the learned Board of Revenue for ad interim ex-parte stay after due application of mind, whether it discontinued after due application of mind. It is not borne out from the record that on 11.1.2008 when the interim order of stay was not extended, it was a conscious decision of Board of Revenue not to extend the interim order at that stage. In these circumstances, instead of interfering with the impugned order, I set the petitioner at liberty to again make an application before the Board of Revenue who upon hearing all concerned shall pass a considered order after due application of mind as to necessity or otherwise of interim order of status quo which was operating till 11.1.2008. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/