JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 11th May, 1988, passed by the District Judge, Alwar, by which, he rejected the prayer of the petitioner for staying the operation of the order of the learned Munsif dated 29th Apr., 1988. 2. The petitioner, who is a Government servant, filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Alwar, praying that the transfer order dated 14th April, 1988, by which, the previous order dated 20th November, 1987, was cancelled, was a wrong order, and that his transfer-order dated 20th November, 1987, could not be cancelled. The petitioner was transferred from Alwar to Dungarpur, and then, on his own request, he was again transferred from Dungarpur to Tonk. Against his posting, respondent No. 5 was transferred from Tonk to Alwar. This order dated 20th Nov., 1987. was carried out by the petitioner and respondent No.5. Thereafter, the Government issued another order dated 14th Apr. 1988, by which, the order dated 20th Nov., 1987, was cancelled, and the petitioner was again transferred from Alwar to Tonk, and respondent No. 5 was transferred from Tonk to Alwar. This very order has been challenged in this revision petition. 3. Respondent No. 5 raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision petition. The learned counsel for respondent No. 5 argued that the suit which was filed by the petitioner, before the learned Munsif, Alwar, is still pending and therein, an application under O.39, Rr. 1&2, CPC, was filed requesting the court to grant a temporary injunction, but, the learned Munsif did not agree, and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 29th April, 1988. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal in the court of District Judge, Alwar, and in that appeal, he submitted an application for grant of injunction about the stay of the transfer order dated 14th Apr., 1988. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the application in the court of District Judge was also filed under O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2, CPC, and the learned District Judge dismissed that application vide the impugned order and that has been challenged in this revision petition. 5. The learned Munsif rejected the application of the petitioner filed under O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., and that order being appealable, the petitioner filed an appeal under O. 41, CPC. 1 & 2, CPC, and the learned District Judge dismissed that application vide the impugned order and that has been challenged in this revision petition. 5. The learned Munsif rejected the application of the petitioner filed under O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C., and that order being appealable, the petitioner filed an appeal under O. 41, CPC. If any stay is sought from the appellate court, then application would be under Order 41, Rule 5, CPC. So, the plaintiff-petitioner might have moved an application before the learned District Judge under O. 39, Rr. 1 & 2, CPC, but, actually that was under Order 41, Rule 5, CPC, and the learned District Judge did not agree to grant interim stay. As is clear from the impugned order, the miscellaneous appeal is pending, and the date fixed therein was 27th May, 1988. Now, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents the next date is 12th Aug., 1988. It means the appeal is pending, and the order of the learned District Judge, is not a final order. This order being an interlocutory order, and the main appeal being pending, no revision lies against such an order, before this Court. The plaintiff-petitioner should approach the learned District Judge, for hearing his appeal at an early date, if he thinks that the matter is so important for him. 6. I thus agree with the objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 that the revision petition is not maintainable. 7. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******