JUDGMENT This petition is being disposed of in terms of the following order: The petitioners herein have filed the appeal, which is reported to be barred by limitation and as such it has not been registered as an appeal and has come as Misc. Matter. Shri A.K. Shrivastava, appearing for the non-applicants 1 to 7 has taken a serious objection that for the laches of the petitioners, appeal, being barred by limitation, it cannot be entertained. Both the parties have referred to certain documents on record. The point for consideration for the present is, whether this Court should entertain the appeal or as submitted by both the parties, or the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC, in the Court below be decided first. The petitioners contend that they were not served and an ex parte order has been passed against them. This aspect is to be considered by the Court below where the application under Order 9, Rule 7 is pending. Without keeping this matter pending before this Court any more, it is directed that the learned lower Court shall decide the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC within a period of one month from the date on which this order passed by this Court is conveyed. At this stage, Shri AK. Shrivastava, appearing for the non- applicant No.1 has cited the authority of Vasant Diwakar v. Union of India ( 1983 JLJ 489 ) to submit that the appellate Court cannot pass an order of stay, when in the suit an ex parte injunction order was passed by the trial Court. But the authority is distinguishable on facts. In that case, an ex parte order staying the operation of the impugned order was passed and that too ex parte. In the present matter, both the parties have been heard and the order of maintaining status quo is being passed only for a limited period, i.e., till the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC is decided by the Court below. It shall be open to the learned trial Court to decide the matter of granting or refusing the injunction against the party without being obsessed in any manner by the order of this Court, but decide the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, on its own merits. It shall be open to the learned trial Court to decide the matter of granting or refusing the injunction against the party without being obsessed in any manner by the order of this Court, but decide the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, on its own merits. Shri A.K. Shrivastava has made a reasonable prayer at this stage that this order of maintaining status quo be not taken to permit any party to cut the crop. Both the parties shall maintain the status quo with regard to the possession on the land and the sL:1nding crop thereon. Petition is finally disposed of. 1983 JLJ 489 distinguished.