JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated December 16, 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla whereby order dated May 23, 1997 giving interim custody of the child to the petitioner and his wife has been re-called. 2. The dispute pertains to a male baby who was born in a clinic at Theog. The whereabouts of the woman who gave birth to the child, are not known as she left soon-after delivering the child. The petitioner and his wife are said to have obtained this child when he was only 20 days old from Dr. Nalin Sharma who is running the clinic at Theog. 3. It is not disputed that regular proceedings for the adoption of the child under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are pending before the learned Court. It may further be taken notice of that the machinery for the adoption of the child has been set in motion at the behest of the petitioner. It was during the pendency of those proceedings on an application made by the petitioner and his wife that the interim custody of the child was given to them vide order dated May 23, 1997. 4. It appears that a complaint at a later stage came to be filed by Hira Singh, Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Kuthar to the Human Rights Commission regarding the clandestine manner in which the child was handed over to the petitioner and his wife by Dr. Nalin Sharma. In the order dated March 29, 1997 passed by the State Human Rights Commission, it has been observed that the child is not in the lawful custody and in the interest of the child and his welfare, necessary steps be taken, It has also been said in the order that the child is in the custody of Ratti Ram and his wife and was given to them through a dubious method adopted by the petitioner in collaboration with Dr. Nalin Sharma. Be that as it may. 5. The Commission in the subsequent order dated March 31, 1997 recommended immediate removal of the custody of the child from Ratti Ram and his wife and the same was entrusted to the Child Care Home, Dhalli with the further direction that the Director (Welfare), Himachal Pradesh shall see that the child is giving in adoption in accordance with law. 6. The Commission in the subsequent order dated March 31, 1997 recommended immediate removal of the custody of the child from Ratti Ram and his wife and the same was entrusted to the Child Care Home, Dhalli with the further direction that the Director (Welfare), Himachal Pradesh shall see that the child is giving in adoption in accordance with law. 6. It is thereafter that the Human Rights Commission moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party-respondent in the proceedings which are pending for the adoption of the child as noticed above. It is on the application moved by the Commission that the order dated May 23, 1997 passed by the Court earlier, stands re-called and custody of the child has been directed to be handed over to respondent No. 2 who is Director, Welfare Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 7. Ms. Preetpal Grewal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while laying challenge to the impugned order, has urged that the child is in the custody of the petitioner and his wife ever since they took the child from the clinic and is being looked after well by them. It is further being argued that the Human Rights Commission cannot issue any such direction for the custody of the child and the Court below appears to have been influenced by the two orders noticed above. It is further being argued that the welfare of the child has to be the only consideration and no such order could have been passed by the Court ordering the interim custody of the child to the respondents as they cannot be permitted to adopt under the relevant law. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have justified the order on the basis of the two orders passed by the Human Rights Commission and have further brought to my notice the manner in which the child was born and given by the doctor to the petitioner and his wife. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and an area perusal of the relevant material, I find that it is only the interim custody which has been given to the respondents by the learned Court. The proceedings for regular adoption are pending. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and an area perusal of the relevant material, I find that it is only the interim custody which has been given to the respondents by the learned Court. The proceedings for regular adoption are pending. I find from the order passed by the Human Rights Commission that the petitioner had appeared there to make a statement on March 29, 1997. That statement has also been placed on records of this case. It has been noticed by the Commission that the petitioner had confessed that whatever little land he and his wife possessed, has been given to other persons after the child was taken by them. Some gifts are said to have been made, but this fact is strongly denied by Ms. Grewal, appearing for the petitioner. She states that her client still possesses some more land. 10. There is another important observation made in the order of the Commission that the wife of the petitioner is suffering from the disease of Tuberculosis. This fact is also denied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Examining the overall situation, I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or error of jurisdiction and as such calls for not interference by this Court. The petitioner and his wife, who are present in the Court along with the child, are directed to hand over the custody of the child in sequence of the impugned order. 12. It is, however, made clear that nothing said here-in-above shall influence the mind of the Court, where the adoption proceedings are pending, when a final order in respect of the adoption of the child is made and in case the petitioner makes out a case for adoption and the Court finds it fit in the circumstances that the child should be given to the petitioner and his wife, their plea should be considered. 13. As the child has remained with the petitioner and his wife for more than two years, they would have naturally developed love and affection for the child and the child for them. The petitioner and his wife would be permitted to visit the child as and when a request is so made by them to the concerned authorities. 14. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. The petitioner and his wife would be permitted to visit the child as and when a request is so made by them to the concerned authorities. 14. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed of. Dasti copy, as prayed for, on usual terms. Order accordingly.