respondent no.5 against the petitioner as well as the respondent nos.10 to 14. The said case was registered as S.A.R. Case No.01 of 2020-21. The respondent no.5, vide order dated 04.02.2021 while allowing the said case in favour of the respondent no.7, directed the respondent no.6 to ensure delivery of possession of the land in question in favour of the respondent no.7 within 15 days from the date of the order by evicting the petitioner as well as the respondent nos.10 to 14 (defendants in the said case) from the said land and Jamabandi running in the name of Shivnath Sinha son of Kanhai Sinha appearing at page no.438, Jild no.01 of Register-II was also cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being S.A.R. Appeal Case no.03 of 2020-21 in the court of the respondent no.4 wherein he also prayed for stay of operation of order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5 in S.A.R. Case no.01 of 2020-21. However, the respondent no.4, vide impugned order dated 08.02.2021 admitted the appeal and rejected the petitioner’s prayer for staying the operation of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5. Thereafter, the respondent no.6 issued letter dated 06.02.2021 to the mother of the petitioner, namely, Devati Devi- respondent no.11 for compliance of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5 in S.A.R. Case no.01 of 2020-21. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no.4 while rejecting the petitioner’s prayer seeking stay of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5. It is also submitted that the said impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.4 in undue haste without prima facie appreciating the grounds taken in appeal seeking stay of the order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5. If stay is not granted against the order 04.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.5, the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the court of the respondent no.4 would itself be rendered infructuous.
