JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J. - It appears that' Chhedua, respondent no. 2, felt aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer Shahbajpur dated 10-6-1987 passed in case no. 2479 and he challenged the said order in appeal filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bindki, district Fatehpur on 19-6-1987. 2. For the purposes of getting an interim order to have the operation of the order dated 10-6-1987 stayed the respondent no. 2 approached the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur by means of an application dated 23-7-1987, true copy whereof is appended to the petition as Annexure-1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur respondent no. 1, passed an order dated 23-7-1987 on the aforesaid application of respondent no. 2 staying the operation of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10-6-1987 and also stayed the transfer of the possession till the decision in appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur, had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 27-7-1987 staying the operation of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10-6-1987 inasmuch as there were no proceedings pending before him and the respondent no. 1 had apparently, not passed the order suo moto and had actually passed the order on the application of the opposite party no. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be sound. The respondent no. 1, could have passed the order of stay only if he was seized of the matter in any proceeding under the provisions of Consolidation, of Holdings Act or he had chosen to invoke his power of acting suo moto. In the instant case none of the two situations exist. The proper course for the opposite party no. 2 would have been to move the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bindki, district Fatehpur, for the stay of the operation of the order dated 10-6-1987 passed by the Consolidation Officer instead of approaching the respondent no. 1. 4. It is settled that no writ petition can be entertained only for the purposes of granting interim order. Likewise it is equally settled that no petition can, normally, be maintained against inter-locutory order. It cannot be disputed that the instant writ petition is directed against inter-locutory order and is basically forgetting an interim relief alone. It is, therefore, not maintainable. 5. Likewise it is equally settled that no petition can, normally, be maintained against inter-locutory order. It cannot be disputed that the instant writ petition is directed against inter-locutory order and is basically forgetting an interim relief alone. It is, therefore, not maintainable. 5. However, in the circumstances stated herein before, it appears manifestly just to direct the petitioner to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur and pray before him for the recall of his order dated 21-7-1987 and in the meantime the order dated 23-7-1987 be not allowed to operate. 6. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur by means of written application praying for recall of the order dated 23-7-1987 passed by him who shall dispose of the said application as early as possible. For so long as the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur, does not decide the application of the petitioner the order dated 23-7-1987, which purports to stay the operation of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10-6-1987 and prohibit the transfer of possession, shall remain suspended. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. 7. A certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges by 19-8-1987.