JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition under section 115 CPC has been preferred against the order dated 16.11.2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Kishangarh Bas Camp Court, Tijara in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 40/2002 whereby the order dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD), s Tijara in Civil Misc. Case refusing to issue temporary injunction has been stayed and made ineffective and recovery of Toll Tax has been stayed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition and necessary for its disposal are that non-petitioner No. 1 plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 along with an application to for temporary injunction u/O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 CPC for issuing temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit with the averments that petitioner re-constructed the road from Bhiwadi Daruheda and after taking permission from the State Government. Toll Tax has been levied. Non-petitioner No. 2 has been authorised to collect the Toll Tax. It was alleged that the Auto Rickshaws have been exempted from Toll Tax, but Toll Tax is being forcefully collected from the Auto Rickshaws, which collection may be stayed till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court vide its order dated 27.9.2002 dismissed the application for temporary injunction after hearing the parties and in the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order the learned Court below passed the impugned order as indicated above which has been challenged in this revision petition and this Court has on 9.1.2003 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 16.11.2002. 3. The matter has been listed for orders on the application of non-petitioner-plaintiff No. 1 seeking vacation of the stay order granted by this Court in favour of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for revision petitioner has argued that the recovery of Toll Tax could not have been stayed by the learned Court below vide its order dated 16.11.2002 when the application for temporary injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court. At best, an interim arrangement could have been ordered that the amount of Toll Tax recovered from the Auto Rickshaws be kept in a separate account with necessary particulars so that in the event of the suit of the Auto Rickshaws Union, Bhiwadi being decreed in their favour, they could be refunded the amount recovered from them. At best, an interim arrangement could have been ordered that the amount of Toll Tax recovered from the Auto Rickshaws be kept in a separate account with necessary particulars so that in the event of the suit of the Auto Rickshaws Union, Bhiwadi being decreed in their favour, they could be refunded the amount recovered from them. He has also submitted that the Court below having exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity and illegality, this Court should interfere and set aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 plaintiff has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order is an interim order which cannot be challenged by way of revision. The Court below had issued notices to petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 of the appeal and had fixed 18.12.2002 for their reply and till then as an interim measure, the recovery of Toll Tax from Auto Rickshaws was stayed, and status quo was ordered to be maintained. But, Auto petitioner has straight away come in revision without putting up its case before the Court below. It has, therefore, been vehemently argued that this revision petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed as such. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the impugned order as also the order of the trial Court. 7. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 16.11.2002 is an interim order vide which the notices of the appeal were issued fixing so 18.12.2002 for reply of petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 and till then the recovery of Toll Tax was stayed and status quo was ordered to be maintained. Petitioner has instead of putting up its case before the Court -1 below has straight away approached this Court against the interim order. earned counsel for petitioner could not show as to how this revision is maintainable against such an order which is not a final order. He has also not peen able to show as to how the learned Court below has committed (legality in exercise of its jurisdiction or has exercised jurisdiction not vested n it or has committed material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction because it cannot be disputed that the learned Court below had jurisdiction to pass interim order till the opposite side came before it. Without making any observations on the merits of the cases at this stage. Without making any observations on the merits of the cases at this stage. I am of the well-1 considered view that the revision being not maintainable deserves to be and is dismissed with the observation that petitioner may approach the learned Court below and put up its case before the Court and in the event of his being unsuccessful before the Court below, it may approach this Court for appropriate relief, if so advised. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have brought to my notice that the next date fixed before the Court is 17.5.2003. Learned counsel for petitioner has prayed that the Court below may be directed to dispose of the stay application and if possible the appeal expeditiously and as far as possible on that date and till then the interim order passed by this Court may be ordered to be continued. Learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 has strenuously opposed the continuation of the interim order passed by this Court on 9 1.2003, but has expressed his agreement to the proposal of directions to the Court below for expeditious disposal as suggested by learned counsel for petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that the learned Court below shall endeavour to dispose of the stay application and, if possible, the appeal on the next date fixed before it. The parties are directed to appear there and to co-operate with the Court below. In this view of the matter, the continuation of the interim order dated 9.1.2003 does not appear to be just and reasonable and this prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby disallowed and this revision petition is disposed of as indicated above. *******