ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 12.7.2000 passed in First Appeal No. 18/2000 whereby the prayer made by the appellants to stay further proceedings in Execution Case No. 1/2000 was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that against the aforesaid interim order Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable since above order was passed under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of such contention learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Vs. Sita Ram (AIR 1981 Rajasthan 105). 4. In our view, this question is no longer res integra. Because a Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Smt. Sharda Devi [1997 (1) PLJR 155] has already held that the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable in such matters. We, therefore, find no merit in this submission. 5. Learned counsel then contended that although the execution proceeding is with respect to a residential house, but the appellants are not residing in that house and therefore, the execution proceeding is not maintainable. On the other hand, learned counsel pointed out that in the plaint itself as well as the petition for execution filed on behalf of the respondents, it was already admitted that the appellants are in possession of the house in question. In the circumstance the decree is being executed in the execution proceeding with respect to residential house and having regard to the well settled views of this Court, we feel inclined that the execution proceeding should remain stayed with respect to the house in question. In this connection we may refer to the order dated 21.11.2000, when after hearing both the parties, the interim order was passed in these words:- "In the meantime, the appellants shall not be evicted from the house standing over the disputed land and the execution of decree with respect to other portion of any other property, if any, shall proceed." 6. We after hearing the parties direct that until final hearing of the first appeal, the above mentioned interim order shall continue. We after hearing the parties direct that until final hearing of the first appeal, the above mentioned interim order shall continue. With the aforesaid observation this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.