Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39619 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6583 of 2025 Petitioner :- Imran Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Arun Chand Pandey,Ram Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State- respondents No.s 1, 2 and 3. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 3. It has been submitted that the dispute relates to partition proceedings initiated by opposite party No.4 under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Gauriganj, District Amethi. It has been submitted that the said proceedings attained finality vide order dated 28.6.2023 against which the father of the petitioner, namely Shah Sikandar filed an appeal under Section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya, District Ayodhya. The said appeal was filed on 12.7.2023 and on the application for interim relief preferred on behalf of the appellants order dated 11.8.2023 was passed staying the order impugned in the said appeal dated 28.6.2023 till the lower court record is received by the appellate court. Subsequently, it seems that the lower court record was received and by means of order dated 13.2.2025 after recording the fact that the lower court record has been received the initial interim order dated 11.8.2023 was declared non-est. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 13.2.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and the interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 11.8.2023 was liable to have continued during pendency of the appeal. 5. Considering the submissions of the petitioner, it is noticed that the interim order was passed in his favour on 11.8.2023 and it continued for nearly two years. A perusal of the aforesaid order further indicates that it was clearly stated that the order impugned in the appeal would remain stayed only till the lower court record is received by the appellate court. Accordingly, it is not a case where the petitioner was not aware that the duration during which the trial court's orders would remain stayed and it was open for him to have moved appropriate application to contest the trial court order dated 28.6.2023 on merits and obtained a stay but instead of taking recourse to that he has filed present writ petition assailing the validity of the order dated 13.2.2025. 6. From a reading of the aforesaid order, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 13.2.2025 where the rights of the petitioner has not been decided on merits and it has only been mentioned that the interim order shall proceed only till receipt of the trial court record and once the trial court record has been received the order dated 11.8.2023 stands extinguished. 7. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, the order impugned dated 13.2.2025 shall not preclude the petitioner from moving an appropriate application for interim order on the merits of the case and in case such an applicaditon is made the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same with expedition, in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 11.7.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench