JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a defendant's second appeal against judgment and decree dated 25.1.73 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, remanding the case to the trial court setting aside confirmation of lots dated 2.2.1971, which was admitted on 30.6.1972 and stay order was passed, which was dismissed for default on 3.9.1972 and the restoration application was rejected on 24.4.1979, when the defendant-appellant went in writ which was allowed and order dated 24.4.1979, was set aside and the appeal was restored by order dated 19.9.1980. 2. A preliminary objection has been raised that the stay order dated 30.6.1972 passed in this second appeal was not communicated to the trial court and on the basis of the order of remand dated 25.1.1977 lots were prepared on 20.7.1972 against it plaintiff again filed first appeal no. 243 of 1971-72 which was allowed on 1.6.1973 by Mr. Mubarak Hasan which was allowed partly, was confirmed some part of the trial court's order and remanded for fresh allotment partly and the compliance, lots were again confirmed according to the direction on 12.9.1973 and on 27.5.1974 the defendant present appellant said that there was stay order in the second appeal who was given time to file stay order's copy but he did not file copy of the order, therefore, the execution was made on 29.6.1974 but surreptitiously after it, copy of stay order from Board was kept on the file as paper no. 53-4 showing to be on 17.8.1973 after adding it in the papers total of before in the flyleaf. Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on 1960 (S.C.) page 94 and that if the stay order was not communicated before the trial court's latest order became final and the stay order becomes operative from the date its communication not prior. Reliance has been placed on 1967 A.L.J. page 503 (S.C.). Reliance has been also placed on Section 109 (2) of the C.P.C. and that principle of res judicata applies also at interlocutory stage. 3. Reliance has been placed on 1967 A.L.J. page 503 (S.C.). Reliance has been also placed on Section 109 (2) of the C.P.C. and that principle of res judicata applies also at interlocutory stage. 3. It was argued on merits in reply that the grounds argued at present have not been taken as grounds of appeal and that second appeal against order of remand is not maintainable and that the main dispute remained about division instead of north to south as remanded and directed but to be east to west as there was a dispute about a well. 4. It was argued on merits by the learned, counsel for the appellant that the statement of 2 P.Ws. and one D.Ws. were not considered and the lower appellate court wrongly construed the dispute only, regarding abadi and agricultural land and not about trees which are very valuable three and it was argued in reply to the preliminary objection that the order of the Board staying further proceeding dated 30.6.1972 and the order of Mr. B.R. Vohra dated 15.12.1975 and report dated 9.9.1976 are very material, to decide as to how the stay order of the Board was concealed and was not adhered to and the orders passed by courts below in spite of that stay order was highly illegal and have got no consequence. 5. It is settled principle of law that the stay order becomes operative only when it is communicated to the court. The stay order in the present case appears to be not been communicated to the trial court up to 29.6.1974. The date of delivery of possession and execution and the Board's stay order appears to have been kept on the file after 29.6.1974 as is clear from the perusal of the fly-leaf as it was added as paper no. 53-A and the total of the papers was corrected by over-writing. 6. The date of delivery of possession and execution and the Board's stay order appears to have been kept on the file after 29.6.1974 as is clear from the perusal of the fly-leaf as it was added as paper no. 53-A and the total of the papers was corrected by over-writing. 6. It is also clear that after the first remand order the lots were again prepared and in appeal some part of the order of the trial court regarding confirmation of lots was confirmed and for the rest it was again remanded with directions which were complied with and the lots were again confirmed and execution took place before the stay order could be communicated to the trial court and the present appellant had the knowledge of the two remand orders and the preparation of lots and confirmation of lots he participated in them. Only in the last he disclosed about stay order but could not file it and did not file any appeal against the second remand order also and between the parties lots have become final and it operates as res judicata, Hence this appeal has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.