Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78649 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1872 of 2025 Petitioner :- Munna Lal Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Shukla,Suresh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deepak Gaur Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing at great length, Mr. Deepak Gaur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and Mr. Roopesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This writ petition has been filed against the interim order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Prayagraj in Revision No. 5115 of 2024 preferred by the sixth respondent, Ram Kumar Yadav. By the aforesaid interim order, the Board of Revenue has stayed the operation of two orders, to wit, an order dated 10.05.2002 granting an application for correction of map, which the petitioner says, has been duly acted upon, and another order dated 19.07.2024, rejecting the sixth respondent's application to set aside the order dated 10.05.2002. The correction application that was granted vide order dated 10.05.2002 was made by the petitioner's brother, Thakur Das and the order implemented on 06.06.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been at pains to submit that after all this delay, no restoration application to set aside the order for map correction, that has already taken effect a long time ago, was maintainable. We are of opinion that the order impugned dated 05.03.2025 is purely an interlocutory order. It is not sound practice, even for a Court exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence like us, to interfere with interim orders passed by Subordinate Courts, merely because, in our opinion, these might be illegal. The reason is that the interim orders are invariably passed in aid of hearing. At the hearing, there might be a very different outcome. Interference with an interim order derogates from the authority and the integrity of the Court seized of the matter. This is not to say that interim orders can never be interfered with. If they are patently illegal or work serious injustice in violation of the law, in rare cases, interim orders can be interfered with and set aside by a Court of superior jurisdiction, particularly, one exercising supervisory jurisdiction like this Court. We do not find any such illegality in the order impugned, and more particularly, illegality coupled with manifest and irreparable hardship or injustice, so as to warrant interference with the order impugned, which is purely an interlocutory in nature, is made out. In the circumstances, this petition fails and is summarily dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Deepak Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad