( 1 ) PETITIONER by Shri V. K. Sapre, Advocate. Respondent No. 2 (State of M. P.) by Shri Arvind Dudhawat, Additional Government Advocate. Shri Dudhawat has not filed any written reply to the petition. He prayed for an adjournment for the purpose but having heard learned Counsel for the parties in this context, we are of the view that no written reply is called for and that the matter agitated in the petition can be finally disposed of today on submissions of counsel for the parties and on the material on record. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the parties are heard. ( 3 ) PETITIONER Himmat Singh is one of the purchasers of agricultural lands from respondent No. 4 Madhukar Shah, Ju Deo. ( 4 ) A proceeding under S. 9 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (20 of 1960) was initiated against respondent 4. Petitioner Himmat Singh filed appeals in the Board of Revenue against an order passed by the competent authority in the Revenue Case No. 80-A 190-B, 3, 74-75. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeals and upheld the transfers made by Madhukar Shah Ju Deo. ( 5 ) THE matter went back to the competent authority to proceed with the proceeding in accordance with the directions of the appellate Court. ( 6 ) IN 1979 petitioner Himmat Singh filed an application praying that the appellate order dated 28th June, 1979 may be amended by including the name of the petitioner and the land transferred to him at serial No. 6 of the list of the purchasers. Pending this application, the petitioner filed an application for stay of the proceeding before the competent authority Tikamgarh. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Government Advocate, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue rejected the application observing that the latest amendment Ordinance seems to prohibit passing of a stay order. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner has come up in writ before this Court. Clause 7 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988 inserted S. 42-A in the main Act. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner has come up in writ before this Court. Clause 7 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988 inserted S. 42-A in the main Act. Section 42-A runs as follows :"42-A. Bar to grant stay.- No stay shall be granted by appellate authority under S. 41 or by the revisional authority under S. 42 : provided that the stay granted before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988 shall, on such commencement, stand vacated. " ( 8 ) THE bar to grant stay is in respect of an appeal under S. 41 or a revision under S. 42 of, the main Act. In the instant case, the petitioner's application for amendment of the appellate order - a prayer akin to be one that could have been made under S. 152, C. P. C. to a Civil Court, was certainly neither by way of an appeal under S. 41 nor by way of revision under S. 42. Hence, the bar introduced by S. 42-A does not operate in the instant case. Here the prayer in the application for stay was not in respect of any order passed by the competent authority but was for a stay of the pending proceeding before the competent authority. To such a prayer, the bar u/s. 42a did not apply in terms. The learned member of the Board of Revenue, therefore, acted illegally in rejecting the application with reference to the bar u/s. 42a. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, quash the order of the Board of Revenue and direct the learned Member to dispose of the application for stay on the merits but in inadvertence to the observations made above. ( 10 ) THIS disposes of the petition fully. No order as to costs. ( 11 ) AS prayed, a certified copy of this order be given to the petitioner's counsel during the course of the day on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed. .