Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84772 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16074 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajdev Singh Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 21 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,P.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C.,Manoj Yadav Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Ist), Varanasi Region, Varanasi in Case No. 2282 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. C202414000002281 of 2024) (Rajdev Singh Vs. Prema Devi and others) as well as Case No. 2281 of 2024 (Computerized Case No. C202414000002281 of 2024) (Rajdev Singh Vs. Prema Devi and others) under section 207 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 03, 04, 05 and 06 to maintain status-quo over Gata No. 165 area 6.7600 Hectare as well as Gata No. 164 area 5.913 Hectare and Gata No. 248 area 2.460 Hectare situated at Mauza Ahirauli, Pargana Gadwara, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur during pendency of Appeal No. C202414000002281 of 2024 (Rajdev aws. Prema Devi and others) as well as Appeal No. C202414000002282 of 2024 (Rajdev Singh Vs. Prema Devi and others) pending before the Respondent No. 2/ Additional Commissioner Judicial (Ist), Varanasi Region, Varanasi, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. The order impugned is an order passed in a first appeal rejecting the stay application. The appeal has already been admitted. The appeal is arising out of the proceedings under Section 116 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006 for partition against the final decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Mool Chand Yadav vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited 1982 LawSuit (SC) 159 and has submitted that once the first appeal is admitted, the court ought to have maintained status quo during pendency of the appeal as the first appeal is the appeal on facts as well as on law. 5. Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.7 and 9 as well as learned Standing Counsel have submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and the direction be issued to the respondent no.2 to decide the appeal in a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the appeal within a period of four months as both the parties have appeared before the appellate court after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties in accordance with law. 7. Till disposal of the appeal, parties are directed to maintain status quo. 8. It is made clear that petitioner will not linger on the appellate proceedings by seeking undue adjournments and in case the petitioner seeks undue adjournment to linger on the disposal of the appeal, the interim protection granted by this Court will automatically come to an end. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Priya (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad