HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Writ Petition No.668 of 2010 (M/S) Rajeev Jain and another ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Dated:- 13th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashist, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Pradeep Hariya, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. It transpires that an exparte order dated 18.07.2009 has been passed by the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. The petitioner filed an application for recall for the said order and during the pendency of the recall application, the petitioner also filed an interim application for stay of the said order. The authority initially entertained the recall application and stayed the aforesaid order passed under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, but, subsequently on an application of the respondent, the interim order has been vacated exparte. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed present writ petition. Even though, the writ petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order, this court is of the view that the Tehsildar, Khatima respondent no.2 has committed a manifest error in vacating the interim order exparte without hearing the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Tehsildar will decide the restoration application after hearing both the parties within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Till the disposal of the restoration application, the interim order granted by this Court will continue to operate. 2 It is made clear that the parties will not seek any undue adjournment and will appear on the dated fixed by the Tehsildar. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 13.07.2010 LSR