Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135033 Court No. - 37 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8795 of 2025 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Jain Respondent :- Mukesh Chandra Bansal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Chaturvedi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioner. 3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i) Issue a direction that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the shop in dispute during pendency of the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2024, Virendra Kumar Jain Vs. Mukesh Chandra Bansal & another pending before District Judge, Firozabad. ii) Issue a direction to stay the order of Dakhal Parwana dated 14.07.2025 passed by Court of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Firozabad in Misc. P.A. Case No. 79 of 2024, Mukesh Chandra Bansal & another Vs. Virendra Kumar Jain during the pendency of appeal before lower appellate Court. iii) any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that P.A. Case No. 79 of 2024 (Mukesh Chandra Bansal & another Vs. Virendra Kumar) under Section 21(1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was decided by Prescribed authority vide order dated 20.02.2024. He submitted that appeal against the order dated 20.02.2024 was filed on behalf of petitioner along with the stay application. He further submitted that petitioner approached this Court by way of Matter Under Article 227 No. 14725 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.11.2024 directing the appellate Court to decide the stay application within a period of four weeks. He next submitted that no order was passed on the stay application till the date of filing of instant petition and execution proceeded against the petitioner, accordingly the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on behalf of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after filing of the instant petition, the appellate Court has rejected the petitioner's stay application in appeal vide order dated 07.08.2025. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in 2007 (2) AWC 1773 (SC) P.V. Chetty V.P.N.R. Chetty (S.C.) and 1983 A.W.C. 121 Mool Chand Yadav v. R.B. Sugar Co. Ltd. (S.C.). He next submitted that appropriate direction be issued for expeditious disposal of pending appeal no. 36 of 2024 (Virendra Kumar Vs. Mukesh Chandra Bansal & another and till the disposal of the appeal, the proceeding of execution should be stayed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that appeal filed by petitioner against the order of Prescribed authority is pending before Appellate Court/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Firozabad, but stay application has been rejected vide order dated 07.08.2025. There is no prayer for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2025. There is also no dispute about the facts that execution proceeding is pending in pursuance of the order of Prescribed authority. 8. Considering the facts that appeal filed by petitioner is pending for last more than one year, the appellate Court/Additional District Judge and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Firozabad is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal No. 36 of 2024 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of finally. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad