KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) IN these two revisions, the Land reforms Appellate Authority, Karwar, has postponed the consideration of I. As. 1 and 2 filed for grant of injunction and stay on the ground that the Rules as contemplated by Section 6 of the Karnataka land Reforms Amendment Act 1986 had not been framed ; that there was no process serving agency and that no seal had been supplied as yet. ( 2 ) SECTION 6 of the Karnataka Land reforms (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act no. 19 of 1986), reads, as-" (2) The appellate Authority shall, for the purpose of the disposal of the appeals before it, have the same powers as are vested in a Court of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) except the following, namely: (a) power of remanding the appeal to the Tribunal, either for recording fresh decision or for recording further evidence or for any other purposes ; (b) power of referring any point or points for decision to the Tribunal ; (c) such other matters as may be prescribed ; (3) The State Government, may make rules for- (a) conferment of such other powers on the Appellate Authority as may be considered necessary ; (b) regulating the practice and procedure of the Appellate Authority and the conduct of its business. "the Appellate Authority has pointed out that as contemplated by amending section 6 (3) (b), rules regulating the practice and procedure of the appellate authority and the conduct of the business have not been framed as yet. Unless the rules regulating the practice and procedure of the appellate authority and the conduct of its business are framed, it would not be possible for the appellate authority to proceed with the work at all. When a provision regarding the framing of the Rules is incorporated in the Act, it is incumbent upon it to frame the rules regulating the practice and procedure of the authority and conduct of its business. In the absence of the rules, it would not be possible for appellate authority to carry on its work. The government, ought to have framed the rules on the very day when the said amendment Act was brought into force or atleast within a short time thereafter. In the absence of the rules, it would not be possible for appellate authority to carry on its work. The government, ought to have framed the rules on the very day when the said amendment Act was brought into force or atleast within a short time thereafter. As can be seen from the order passed by the Court below, no such rules appear to have been framed till today. It is hoped that the Government would soon frame the rules regulating the practice, procedure and the conduct of the business of the appellate authority. Till the rules are framed, it is difficult and impossible for the appellate authority to proceed with the cases. ( 3 ) THE second difficulty pointed out by the appellate authority is the absence of a provision for getting the process served. The Rules to be framed by the Government, must also specify the agency through which the process should be got served by the appellate authority. ( 4 ) THE third difficulty pointed out by the appellate authority is the want of seal. If any process or order of the appellate authority is to be executed, the party against whom it is sought to be executed can resist the execution of the same on the ground that it does not bear the seal. Therefore, it is quite high time that the Government should take steps to issue the seals. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the order passed by the appellate authority postponing the consideration of I. As. 1 and 2 on account of the said difficulties pointed out by it, does not need any interference. Therefore, the revisions are dismissed. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel Sri Acharya for the petitioner submitted that atleast this Court should pass necessary orders of injunction or stay. It would not be proper for this Court to issue any such interim orders at this stage. ( 7 ) SEND a copy of this order and also the copy of the order passed by the appellate authority, to the Government of Karnataka and the Law Department for necessary action. --- *** --- .