Honble YADAV, J. – The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.10.95 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur (South), Udaipur by means of which, he has rejected the application moved by the revisionist under Sec. 151, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94. (2). Brief facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the instant revision are that a suit for eviction was filed against the present revisionist in which his defence was struck off and against the said order, he filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Udaipur, which was dismissed. (3). Against dismissal of the appeal, he filed a revision before this Court which was admitted and ad interim stay order was granted on 10.5.1994. It appears from the impugned order that the case was posted for orders on 27.7.94 and on that day, none was present on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, who is non- petitioner here in the present petition. On 27.7.94, the ad interim stay order dated 10.5.94 was allowed to continue till further orders, which reads thus, – ``Honble Mr. N.C. Kochhar, J. Mr. V.L. Mathur, for the petitioner None for the respondent Although Shri D.R. Bhandari has filed power on behalf of the respondent but his name has not been shown in the Cause List and it appears for this reason, he is not present. List the case on 17.8.94 after showing the names of the learned counsel for the parties in the Cause List. Interim order dated 10.5.94 is continued till further orders . Sd/- N.C. Kochhar, J. (4). It appears that the stay order, which was extended on 27.7.94 was not communicated to the learned trial court, therefore, it proceeded with the suit and passed an ex parte decree on 3.9.94. (5). The present defendant-revisionist moved an application on 17.12.94 alleging therein that he got knowledge of the ex parte decree on 25.11.94. In the aforesaid application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94, it is clearly stated that ad interim stay order was granted by this Court on 10.5.94 and it was allowed to continue till further orders on 27.7.94 yet the plaintiff-opposite-party concealing the aforesaid facts from the learned trial court obtained ex parte decree fraudulently. According to the revisionist, the said conduct of the non- petitioner amounts fraud on the Court. (6). According to the revisionist, the said conduct of the non- petitioner amounts fraud on the Court. (6). Indisputably, irrespective of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the learned trial court that the ad interim stay order dated 10.5.94 was allowed to continue till further orders of this Court on 27.7.94 yet he declined to set aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94. (7). Aggrieved against the impugned order rejecting the application under Sec. 151, CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94, the defendant-revisionist filed the present revision before this Court. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent, the instant revision is hereby finally disposed of at admission stage. (9). First contention of learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that the stay order takes effect from the moment it is passed and the fact that the court which was supposed to obey stay order even has no knowledge of it makes no difference and all the proceedings taken in the present case after stay order was allowed to continue till further orders by this Court on 27.7.94 are without jurisdiction and as such the exparte decree dated 3.9.94 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. (10). It is next contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that atleast when the revisionist moved an application under Sec. 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree before the same Court and stay order dated 27.7.94 passed by this Court was brought to its notice then ex-parte decree ought to have been set aside in the interest of justice. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mulraj vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj (1). (11). Learned counsel Mr. Dalpat Raj Bhandari appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-non-petitioner has refuted the aforesaid argument and strenuously urged before me that application under Sec. 151 CPC was moved after inordinate delay of more than three months, therefore, in such circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94. Learned counsel Mr. Dalpat Raj Bhandari appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-non-petitioner has refuted the aforesaid argument and strenuously urged before me that application under Sec. 151 CPC was moved after inordinate delay of more than three months, therefore, in such circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94. It is also argued by Shri Bhandari that so long the learned trial court has no knowledge about the stay order allowed to continue till further orders on 27.7.94 passed by this Court, it does not lose jurisdiction to pass the ex parte decree on 3.9.94 specially when the counsel for the defendant-revisionist at the trial court appeared on few dates before passing of ex parte decree. (12). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. It is true that there appears to be some lapses on the part of the Advocate, who was entrusted to do Pairvi for the defendant-revisionist in the earlier revision petition before this Court in communicating the stay order dated 27.7.94. It is alleged that the counsel applied for certified copy of the stay order dated 27.7.94 on the next date i.e. 28.7.94 and the same was received by him on 9.8.94. It is alleged that certified copy of the stay order dated 27.7.94 was sent by counsel through post office but the same could not reach to the defendant-revisionist. It is not mentioned whether the learned counsel sent the certified copy of the stay order through registered post or ordinary post yet lapses on the part of the post office, could not be ruled out. (13). However, the conduct of the Advocate who was doing Pairvi on behalf of the defendant-revisionist in the trial court is reprehensible. He failed to contact his client i.e. defendant- revisionist to verify from him as to whether ad interim stay order dated 10.5.94 which was operative till 31.7.94 has been extended or vacated. He got his presence noted on the order-sheet of the trial court in order to extend strength to ex parte decree dated 3.9.94 passed against his client. (14). He failed to contact his client i.e. defendant- revisionist to verify from him as to whether ad interim stay order dated 10.5.94 which was operative till 31.7.94 has been extended or vacated. He got his presence noted on the order-sheet of the trial court in order to extend strength to ex parte decree dated 3.9.94 passed against his client. (14). It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the application moved under Sec. 151, CPC by the revisionist for setting aside the ex parte decree has been rejected by the learned trial court under incorrect brief that S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 477 of 1994 in which stay order was allowed to continue till further orders on 27.7.94 has been dismissed by this Court on 7.7.95. The order passed in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 477 of 1994 on 7.7.95 is reproduced below for ready reference :– ``7.7.95. Honble Mr. B.J. Shethna, J. None present for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Bhandari, for the respondent. Learned counsel Shri Bhati appearing for the non-petitioner states that the main suit is already decided. This revision petition is arising out of the interim order passed by the court-below in a suit, therefore, now the main petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.Sd/- B.J. Shethna, J. After I passed the above order, it was brought to my notice by learned counsel Shri S.K. Sharma that of-course the suit was disposed of, but the petitioner has already filed an application for restoration of the suit before the trial court. Therefore, it is made clear that if the restoration application filed in the Civil Court is granted then this revision petition will automatically stand revived. Sd/-B.J. Shethna, J. (15). A close scrutiny of the aforesaid order passed by this Court leads towards an irresistible conclusion that dismissal of the aforesaid revision was a conditional order and not final order. It is clearly mentioned by this Court that in case, the restoration application filed by the revisionist is allowed, the revision petition would automatically stood revived. Thus dismissal of earlier revision on 7.7.95 has not attained finality. (16). In the present case, the approach of learned trial court cannot be said to be justice oriented and as such if the order impugned is allowed to stand, it would defeat the cause of justice. Thus dismissal of earlier revision on 7.7.95 has not attained finality. (16). In the present case, the approach of learned trial court cannot be said to be justice oriented and as such if the order impugned is allowed to stand, it would defeat the cause of justice. It is to be imbibed by all the courts of law that whenever or wherever the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the courts of law should not allow the substantial justice either to escape or to slide on mere technicalities. (17). In the present case, nothing has been brought to my notice that the revisionist is guilty of culpable negligence in doing pairvi either in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 477/94 or Original Civil Suit No. 193 of 1986. The revisionist has engaged a counsel to do pairvi on his behalf in the aforesaid revision and he has also engaged a counsel to do pairvi in the aforesaid Original Civil Suit and has reposed implicit faith on his counsel. In such a situation, if his counsel are found to be remissed in the discharge of their noble duties towards him according to their professional ethical norms then he should not be allowed to suffer. (18). Now I propose to discuss the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties threadbare. (19). As regards first contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist to the effect that the stay order takes effect from the moment it is passed and the fact that the court has no knowledge of it makes no difference and the ex parte decree passed by the learned trial court is without jurisdiction, is not acceptable after decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mulraj (supra). It is true that there has been difference of opinion between various High Courts on the aforesaid question about the date of operation of the stay order. The High Courts of Calcutta, Patna and Punjab have held that stay order takes effect from the moment it is passed and knowledge of the court to which stay order is addressed makes no difference and any order passed by such court to which stay order is addressed after stay order has been passed, is without jurisdiction. The High Courts of Calcutta, Patna and Punjab have held that stay order takes effect from the moment it is passed and knowledge of the court to which stay order is addressed makes no difference and any order passed by such court to which stay order is addressed after stay order has been passed, is without jurisdiction. Kerala and Madras High Courts have taken contrary views and have held that the court to which stay is addressed does not lose its jurisdiction from the moment stay order is passed but it becomes operative when stay order comes to its knowledge and any order passed in between is not without jurisdiction. (20). The aforesaid controversy has been resolved by the Apex Court for all times to come in case of Mulraj (supra), where the then Honble K.N. Wanchoo, J. speaking for the court specifically ruled that in case of stay order as soon as the court has knowledge of it, it must stay its hand and further proceedings are illegal but so long as the court has no knowledge of the stay order, it does not lose its jurisdiction to deal or proceed with the case. (21). Indisputably, in the instant case, the learned trial court has no knowledge about the stay order dated 27.7.94 till ex parte decree was passed on 3.9.94, therefore, the said ex parte decree can not be said to be without jurisdiction as argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist. Hence, his first contention is not acceptable and such is hereby repelled. (22). Next contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist to the effect that atleast when the revisionist moved an application under Sec. 151, CPC before the learned trial court for setting aside the ex parte decree and stay order dated 27.7.94 passed by this Court was brought to ; its notice then ex parte decree ought to have been set aside in the interest of justice. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist has substance. In my considered opinion, in the present case, the ex parte decree is liable to be set aside on the aforesaid ground. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist has substance. In my considered opinion, in the present case, the ex parte decree is liable to be set aside on the aforesaid ground. An identical question came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Mulraj (supra) where their Lordships ruled in Paragraph 11 which reads thus :– ``xxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Though, therefore, the court executing the decree cannot in our opinion be deprived of its jurisdiction to carry on execution till it has knowledge of the stay order, the court has the power in our view to set aside the proceedings taken between the time when the stay order was passed and the time when it was brought to its notice, if it is asked to do so and it considers that it is necessary in the interest of justice that the interim proceedings should be set aside. But that can only be done by the court which has taken the interim proceedings in the interest of justice under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided the order is brought to its knowledge and a prayer is made to set aside the interim proceedings within a reasonable time. Otherwise the interim proceedings in our opinion are not a nullity and in the absence of such exercise of power by the court executing the decree under S. 151, they remain good for all purposes. (23). I am satisfied that the revisionist in the present case, within reasonable period after getting knowledge of the ex parte decree dated 3.9.94 moved an application under Sec. 151, CPC with a prayer to set aside the said ex parte decree before the learned trial court and stay order dated 27.7.94 was brought to its notice yet the learned trial court has illegally refused to set aside the ex parte decree. The impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence, it is to be set aside together with the ex parte decree. (24). For the reasons stated above, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 477 of 1994 is automatically stand revived. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid revision is to be posted for final hearing on 19.12.1995. (25). (24). For the reasons stated above, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 477 of 1994 is automatically stand revived. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid revision is to be posted for final hearing on 19.12.1995. (25). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 26.10.95 together with ex parte decree dated 3.9.94 is hereby set aside and the instant revision petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations at admission stage in order to expedite hearing of the case between the parties on merits, which is pending since 1986. Both the parties are left to bear their own costs. (26). A copy of this judgment be placed on the record of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 477/94.