S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) ). Rule Mr. Janak V. Japee waives service of rule on behalf of respondent. With the consent of the learned Advocate appearing for the parties the matter is finally heard today. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner is the original defendant and a judgment-debtor against whom a decree of eviction from the suit premises is passed by two courts below Being aggrieved by the decree of eviction the petitioner has preferred Civil Revision Application No 795 of 1991 before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court while admitting such Civil Revision Application has ordered as under: rule Ad interim relief with regard to decree for possession on usual terms. The writ of this court which is sent to the Trial Court reads as under. It is hereby accordingly ordered that on the applicant depositing all the arrears of rent/mesne profits within four weeks from the date of receipt of this writ and further depositing future rent/mesne profit as it accrues due from time to time the judgment and decree passed by you in Regular Civil Suit No 135 of 1987 of your Court be and is hereby stayed with regard to possession till final disposal of the aforesaid Civil Revision Application by this Court. ( 3 ) ). The aforesaid order of the court was communicated and received by the Trial Court and the writ was certified on 26th July 1991. The petitioner-tenant was expected to pay up the entire arrears of rent/mesne profit within four weeks from 26th of July 1991 and was also expected to pay from time to time the rent/mesne profit as and when it accrued due. It is the case of the landlord/decree holder that the tenant has failed to comply with the order of this court so as to deposit the entire arrears of rent then due within four weeks and also by failing to pay regularly mesne profit which has fallen due thereafter from month to month. It is the case of the decree holder that since the order of stay granted by this Court was conditional order stay granted by this Court automatically stood vacated on failure of the tenant to comply with the terms and conditions of the stay granted by this court. It is the case of the decree holder that since the order of stay granted by this Court was conditional order stay granted by this Court automatically stood vacated on failure of the tenant to comply with the terms and conditions of the stay granted by this court. The decree holder has thereupon filed execution proceedings and in such execution proceedings Civil Judge S. D. Himatnagar has passed the impugned order on 26th September 1994 whereby he has taken the view that since the tenant has failed to comply with the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while passing an order of stay the order automatically gets vacated and warrant for possession is required to be issued. ( 4 ) ). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the judgment debtor (tenant) has approached this court. Mr. P. B. Majmudar learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before this court that this practice of the Trial Court to proceed to execute the decree by issuing warrant for possession is required to be deprecated especially when order of stay of execution of Judgment and decree is granted by this Court. He submitted that all along since establishment of this Court the practice was that in case of failure of the tenant to comply with the terms and conditions of order of stay granted by this Court the landlord would approach this Court by Civil Application and /or Note for vacating the interim relief so that this court can either call upon the tenant to pay up the arrears of rent/ mesne profit within extended time if it so grants or comply with the terms and conditions or can vacate the stay. He further submitted that judicial propriety also requires that the Trial Court before treating the order of stay granted by this Court as ineffective or inoperative should direct the party to seek necessary direction from this court. He submitted that once possession warrant is issued and possession of the premises is recovered the substantive proceeding pending in the High Court for final hearing becomes infructuous. He submitted that once possession warrant is issued and possession of the premises is recovered the substantive proceeding pending in the High Court for final hearing becomes infructuous. He has further submitted that such practice which is of recent origin and now followed by the courts below is required to be deprecated and discouraged so that an erring tenant or judgment-debtor is not faced with a warrant of possession even when he has sufficient cause to offer for alleged non-compliance of the terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting stay. ( 5 ) ). Mr. Janak Japee learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that this court has jurisdiction to pass unconditional order of stay or conditional order of stay. When order of stay of execution and operation of decree of possession is conditional one the party in whose favour the order operates must comply with the condition and failure to comply with the conditions must necessarily result into automatic vacation of the order of stay. He submitted that in the present case the tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent/mesne profit within four weeks and has also failed to pay regularly mesne profits thereafter for a period of three years and no interference is therefore called for so as to set aside the warrant of possession ordered to be issued by the executing Court. He submitted that even if warrant for possession is executed the proceeding in the High Court does not become infructuous because in case High Court allows such proceeding in favour of judgment-debtor the court can order restitution of possession or such party can also apply for restitution. ( 6 ) ). It is true that this court in its revisional jurisdiction has very wide power to grant absolute or unconditional stay of execution and operation of the decree of possession. However with a view to seeing that a tenant facing a decree of eviction does not enjoy possession without paying mesne profits twin conditions are ordinarily imposed - (1) payment of entire arrears of rent within stipulated time and (2) payment of mesne profits regularly thereafter till the proceedings before this Court are concluded. These conditions are imposed with a view to seeing that an erring tenant facing a decree of eviction does not enjoy possession without paying rent/mesne profits. These conditions are imposed with a view to seeing that an erring tenant facing a decree of eviction does not enjoy possession without paying rent/mesne profits. The purpose of imposing such conditions is also to keep control over the conduct of the tenant. If a recalcitrant tenant continues his non-compliance of the terms and conditions imposed by the order of this court so as not to pay the arrears of rent and/or mesne profits which has then fallen due this Court can vacate the stay. On the other hand if any just proper or reasonable cause prevented the tenant from complying with the conditions imposed by this Court this Court can under Section 148 of C. P. Code be further order condone such non-compliance or may ensure compliance within extended time and continue stay against execution and operation. While passing such conditional order this court is not necessarily enabling the Lower Courts to treat the order of stay of this court as ineffective or meaningless or as one which has stood automatically vacated. It is true that that may be the meaning of a conditional order but judicial propriety requires that the courts below before treating the order of the stay of this court as ineffective or inoperative shall direct the parties to seek direction from this Court rather than to proceed to execute the decree which is stayed by this Court in a proceeding which is pending in this Court. To permit the Courts below to adopt this procedure many a times result into rendering the pending proceeding before this court infructuous and meaningless. This may also lead to encouraging judicial indiscipline amongst the Lower Courts when they would on their own interpretation of the order of stay of this court treat the order of stay of this court as ineffective. This liberty cannot be permitted to the courts below when this court is seized of the proceeding in which it has by judicial order found it fit to stay the execution and operation of the decree albeit on certain terms and condition. This liberty cannot be permitted to the courts below when this court is seized of the proceeding in which it has by judicial order found it fit to stay the execution and operation of the decree albeit on certain terms and condition. It is sound judicial practice for all Trial Courts and Courts subordinate to this High Court to follow namely that before treating the order of stay/injunction of the High Court (whether conditional or unconditional) as vacated or as ineffective they shall direct the parties to approach this Court and seek clarification from this Court and shall thereafter only proceed to execute the judgment and decree if so permitted by this court. ( 7 ) ). It is also required to be noted that this court in its revisional jurisdiction is seized of the main proceeding. The judgment and decree of eviction passed by courts below are stayed. It is submitted before this court that courts below lack jurisdiction when this court is seized of the matter and appropriate course of action for the party is to move this court for appropriate action against a party which has failed to comply with conditions imposed by this court. This submission is well founded and shall have to be accepted. It is not open to a party to treat the order of this court as non est or inoperative nor is it open to the courts below to proceed to execute a decree of eviction when order of slay is granted by this court. In my opinion the courts below lack jurisdiction to execute the decree which is stayed by this court subject to condition. In case conditions are not fulfilled the parties shall have to approach this court and not the Trial Court for execution of decree. ( 8 ) ). The remedy of restoration of possession is a lengthy remedy. It is time consuming and party which has recovered possession by such execution of decree may by various devices protract or delay the proceedings so as to avoid restoration of possession. At limes claims or interest of the third parties may be put forward and such third parties may not even know about proceeding for restitution of possession. In my opinion the remedy of restitution or restoration being too lengthy and replete with number of other complications cannot be said to be proper remedy. At limes claims or interest of the third parties may be put forward and such third parties may not even know about proceeding for restitution of possession. In my opinion the remedy of restitution or restoration being too lengthy and replete with number of other complications cannot be said to be proper remedy. I do not agree with Mr. Janak V. Japee that once a conditional order of stay is granted on non-compliance of condition the executing court can straightaway proceed to execute the decree irrespective of the order of stay of higher courts. ( 9 ) ). In view of the aforesaid position of law this Civil Revision Application shall have to be allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge S. D. Himatnagar on 26th September 1994 is quashed and set aside and possession warrant issued in execution proceeding is also set aside. It is stated before this Court that entire arrears of rent then due and mesne profits which have fallen due every month thereafter are paid up by the petitioner tenant. The petitioner tenant is directed to deposit in Trial Court advance mesne profits upto 30th June 1995 within five weeks from today. ( 10 ) ). Since default on the part of the tenant has led the respondent landlord to filing of execution proceeding incurring of expenses and has also deprived him of rent/mesne profits over a period of three years it was submitted before this court that tenant should be subjected to cost of the respondent landlord. In the facts and circumstances of the case the request being just shall have to be accepted. The tenant who is present in the court has shown readiness and willingness to pay the cost. The cost is fixed at Rs. 3 0 The petitionertenant is directed to pay the same to the respondent-landlord by tomorrow i. e. 6th of October 1994 in this court only. The respondent-landlord is directed to issue receipt for cost as and when such amount is received. 11 The Civil Revision Application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) ). It is agreed between the parties that the Civil Revision Application No. 795 of 1991 is required to be pre-emptorily heard. 11 The Civil Revision Application is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) ). It is agreed between the parties that the Civil Revision Application No. 795 of 1991 is required to be pre-emptorily heard. The hearing of C. R. A No. 795 of 1991 is expedited and it is fixed for final hearing on 19th of December 1994. .