JUDGMENT - Deshpande D.B. J.-Petitioners Paikamma and Sitamma filed regular Civil Suit No. 121 /19 74 against respondent Maroti, his brother and his mother for possession of the two disputed fields and for other reliefs. “ On 30–11–1978 the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Chandrapur passed a decree in favour of the petitioners for possession of the suit lands and he directed an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code regarding future mesne profits. Regular Civil Appeal No. 23/1979 preferred by respondent Maroti was dismissed on 7–1-1981 by the learned Assistant Judge, Chandra-pur.-Similarly appeal No. 3 /1979 filed by the mother and brother of Maroti regarding mesne profits was also dismissed by the same judge by a common judgment. Thereafter the petitioners filed execution petition for obtaining possession of the two suit lands. He obtained the orders for the service of the special process server on 27–1-1981 and they obtained actual possession of the land on 28–1-1981 at about 10 A. M. 2. It appears that on this very day respondent Maroti came to know that the bailiff had come for handing over possession and he approached the civil Court at Chandrapur and requested for stay of the execution and it appears further that the learned Judge passed an order of ad interim stay of execution under Order 41, Rule 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. But it appears further that before the stay order was actually received, the peti- tioners had already got actual possession of the land from Maroti. 3. It is on account of these facts that on 29–1-1981 respondent Maroti gave an application in the trial Court at Ex. 13 in regular darkhast No. 6/1981 for restoration of possession and this application was made under section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Pro- cedure. The present petitioners objected to the petition filed by respondent Maroti. After considering the material before him the learned Judge gave a clear finding that the provisions of section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The present petitioners objected to the petition filed by respondent Maroti. After considering the material before him the learned Judge gave a clear finding that the provisions of section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code were not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, he held that the can restore the possession of the land to Maroti under inherent powers tinder section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and so* he passed an order on 3–2-1981 that the decree holders shall put the judgment debtor in posses-sion of the suit fields with thestanding crops. According to the learned Judge no act of the Court should harm the litigants. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners who are decree holders have filed this revision application. 4. It is quite clear that the learned Judge has given a finding that sec-tion 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. But the learned Judge has passed the order by invoking aid of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order of the Court is clearly contrary to the law. When the possession of the land was already delivered to the decree holders before the stay order reached the bailiff who was entrusted with the work of handing over of possession to the decree holders petitioners, the stay order became inoperative and ineffective and the possession could not be restored even under inherent powers. Shri G. J. Ghate, advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners urged before me that even the stay order was passed after the possession was actually delivered to the petitioners and apart from this even if it is assumed for a moment that the stay order was actually passed before possession was actually delivered, it is undisputed fact that it could not be communicated to the bailiff before the possession was actually delivered to the decree-holders petitioners. It is a fact of common knowledge, that even where a superior Court issues a stay order and if the decree is executed before the stay order of the superior Court reaches the original Court, the stay order becomes in-operative. The same principle will apply in respect of the order passed by the same Court regarding stay on the decree for delivery of possession is clearly executed. The same principle will apply in respect of the order passed by the same Court regarding stay on the decree for delivery of possession is clearly executed. I do not think that any jurisdiction is vested in the trial Court even under inherent jurisdiction to restore possession of the land to respondent Maroti. The learned Judge has clearly exercised his jurisdiction which was not vested in him by law and the order is clearly illegal and it cannot be supported. The result is that this revision application is allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court dated 3–2-1981 directing the decree holders to put the judgment debtor Maroti in possession of the suit fields with standing crops is quashed and the application of Maroti dated 29–1-1981 is dismissed. Rule is made absolute. But, as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent, there will be no order of costs of this revision application. Rule absolute. -----