Judgment H.L.Agrawal, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed on behalf of the judgment-debtor and arises out of an execution proceeding going on in the Court of the Additional Munsif-Jamshedpur. for delivery of certain properties. 2. On 21-8-1963the Nazir went to effect the delivery of possession, but as it appears from the report, the delivery of possession could not be effected, as the lands were not identifiable On an appli- cation by the decree-holder, on 14-10-1963 a pleader commissioner was appointed to identify the lands, but he also submitted a report, dated 27-1-1964 to the same effect. The pleader commissioners report was accepted after dismissing the objection of the decree-holder by the executing court. 3. On 22-2-1964, the decree-holder applied to the District Judge for transfer of the execution case from the court of the Additional Munsif and the same was admitted and an order of stay of the further proceedings in the execution case No. 18 of 1963 was passed on the same day. It appears that there was some delay in communicating the order of stay and the executing court in the meantime by order dated 24-2-1964 in view of the reports of the Nazir and the pleader commissioner dismissed the execution case on the ground that the decree was unexecutable. Soon after passing of the above order, the stay order was communicated to the learned Munsif. but he merelv recorded an order to the effect that as he had already disposed of the execution case, he had nothing to do in the matter any further and directed for transmission of the record of the case to the court of the District Judge. It further appears that the court of this Additional Munsif was abolished and the matter was ultimately put up after the disposal of the transfer case, which had become infructuous and accordinely dismissed, before another Munsif. The decree-holder made an application under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the execution case. Such a prayer was not made by him before the original Court when the stay order was received by that court. The decree-holder made an application under Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the execution case. Such a prayer was not made by him before the original Court when the stay order was received by that court. This application has been allowed by an order, dated the 19th March, 1968, by the successor-in-office under the impression that the stay order" would be effective from the moment it was passed and therefore, the order passed by his predecessor on 24-2-1064 had to be taken to be an order passed without jurisdiction and as such, was not operative in the eye of law. He went further and said that as a matter of fact, the said order was not passed in the sense it ought to have been passed mainly due to inadvertence, because had the order of the District Judge been before the Court the execution case could not have been dismissed. Taking this view, the learned Munsif purporting to act under Sec.151 of the Code recalled the order, dated 24-2-1964. 4. After the restoration of the execution case, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Sec. 47 of the Code and one of the grounds taken was that the execution was not maintainable as alreadv held by the order, dated 24-2- 1964. This plea of the judgment debtor was negatived by the executing Court. In answering this question in paragraph No. 4 the executing court has said that inasmuch as no revision was filed by the judgment debtor against the order, dated 19-3-1968, that order became final and could not be questioned before him. After rejecting this plea, he has considered the merits of the objection petition regarding the executability of the decree and overruled this objection also. An appeal was taken against the said order by the judgment-debtor and the learned Subordinate Judge has upheld the view of the executing court. With respect to the dismissal of the execution case on 24-2-1964 the appellate court has also held that the said order was passed in ignorance of the stay order and when this fact was brought to the notice of the Execution Munsif, he had the authority to recall the same. He dismissed the appeal and therefore, the judgment debtor has filed the present appeal. 5. I have examined the circumstances of this, case. He dismissed the appeal and therefore, the judgment debtor has filed the present appeal. 5. I have examined the circumstances of this, case. In my opinion both the courts below have misdirected themselves in appreciating the validitv of the order, dated the 24th of February, 1964. The order of stay passed by an appellate court either in an appeal or in an application for transfer of anv proceeding does not become effective from the time of the passing of the order and the Court does not lose the jurisdiction because of some order of which it has no knowledge. The order of stay can have effect only when it is made known to the court concerned. Applying the principle in an execution proceeding, the execution case can proceed unless the court executing the decree has knowledge of the stay order and only such action which is taken thereafter would be a nullity so long the stay order is enforced. The view of the Special Bench decision of this Court in Liakat Mian V/s. Padampat Singhania ( AIR 1951 Pat 130 (SB)) where It was held that a stay order becomes effective the moment it is passed irrespective of the fact as to whether it is communicated to the court concerned, has not been approved by the Supreme Court in Mulrai V/s. Murti Raghunathji Maharai ( AIR 1967 SC 1386 ). The Supreme Court in the said decision has held that in effect, a stay order is more or less in the same position as the order of injunction, the only distinction being that while one is addressed to a court the other to a party . The Supreme Court in the said decision has held that in effect, a stay order is more or less in the same position as the order of injunction, the only distinction being that while one is addressed to a court the other to a party . In both the cases, knowledge of the party concerned or of the court is necessary before the prohibition takes effect The Supreme Court has rather held in the above decision that this principle would apply with greater force to stay orders passed in transfer applications as in the case of execution proceeding, at any rate there is appeal in which a stay order is passed; whereas the transfer proceedings are collateral proceedings and even though the superior authority may have the power to order stay, it cannot deprive the inferior authority having jurisdiction over the matter unless the inferior "authority is apprised of the order by the superior authority and the interim proceedings are not rendered a nullity after the receipt of the stay order. If the inferior authority is asked to set aside the proceeding taken between the time when the stay order was passed and the time when it was brought to the notice of the inferior authority the inferior authority may in the interest of justice set aside the interim orders on a praver being made in this regard within a reasonable time. 6. The order, dated 24-2-1964 was not recalled by the Additional Munsif, who bad passed the said order even on being apprised of the order of stay . That shows that he did not feel inclined to recall the same as he was not bound to do it. Therefore, it was not proper for the successor-in-office to exercise the power under Sec.151 of the Code and recall the order subsequently on 19-3-1968. I would have allowed the appeal on this ground alone, as the order dated l9-3-1968 has been allowed to become final and not having been challenged before a higher court. The position, however, remains that the restoration of the execution case became final. Rather, the judgment debtor has himself filed an application accepting in the execution case there by admitting that there was a valid execution case pending against him and as such, contested the same on merit. 7. Mr. The position, however, remains that the restoration of the execution case became final. Rather, the judgment debtor has himself filed an application accepting in the execution case there by admitting that there was a valid execution case pending against him and as such, contested the same on merit. 7. Mr. Sunil Kumar Choudharv learned counsel appearing for the Judgment debtor in support of this appeal has urged with great stress that the recall of the order, dated 24-2-1964 was invalid in view of the above Supreme Court decision. As stated above, the appellant having not moved against that order cannot challenge the validitv of the said order in a proceeding, which was initiated subsequently in restoration of the execution application. 8. Mr. Choudhary also cited a decision of this court in Hiro Sinsh V/s. Kazi Sved Ahmad Hussain (AIR 1922 Pat 204) and urged that the order, dated 19-3-1968 being itself invalid on account, of having been passed by the successor-in-office, all the subseauent orders should be deemed to be without jurisdiction. It is difficult to accept this contention of the learned counsel. The invalidity of the order dated 19-3-1968 is not of the nature which would render the subseauent orders without jurisdiction and that order, for the reasons stated above, has became final. 9. In the result, this appeal has got no merit and it is accordingly dismissed, but I shall make no order as to costs.