JUDGMENT 1. - The learned counsel for the appellant to take steps with regard to un-served respondents within a period of two weeks failing which the appeal shall be dismissed without reference to this court. Since no steps have been taken from 21.7.2003. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that he has moved an application for vacating the stay order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application. The plaintiff respondent No.1 has moved an application that the order dated 25.10.2002 was passed by this court to restore the status quo as prevailing i on 5.10.2002 should be vacated. In view of the fact that in execution of the decree the possession of the property in dispute had been taken over by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 on 5.10.2002 and possession handover to the plaintiff respondent he submits that in view of the decision in AIR 1987 SC 2320 and that the decree has been executed subsequent the stay could not have been passed. 4. I have gone through the order passed by this court on 25.10.2002. The order dated 25.10.2002 is as under: " vizkFkhZx.k dks LFkxu izkFkZuk i= ds uksfVl tkjh fd;s tkosA vkxkeh vkns'k rd vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ( o0[k0 ) lhdj ds fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 4-5-98 rFkk vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k dze 2 lhdj ds fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 19-7-2002 dh ikyuk LFkfxr j[kh tkrh gS rFkk fu"iknu U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os fookfnr lEifRr dk dCtk] ftlls fd izkFkhZx.k dks fnukad 5-10-2002 dks csn[ky fd;k x;k Fkk] okfil izkFkhZx.k dks lkSai nsaxs rFkk 05-10-2002 ls iwoZ dh fLFkfr fookfnr enjlk ds laca/k esa] ;Fkkor cukbZ j[kh tkosxhA vizkFkhZx.k dks izfrcaf/kr fd;k tkrk gS fd os izkFkhZ enjlk tehvrqy] dqjs'k] lhdj ds lapkyu esa fdlh izdkj dk gLrs{ki ugha djsaxs vkSj mDr enjlk iwoZor pkyw j[kk tkosxkA " A bare perusal of the aforesaid order shows that this court was conscious of the fact that on 25.10.2002 after filing of this appeal the possession has been taken over and handover to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in execution of the decree and as such it was ordered for maintaining status quo ente as prevailing before 5.10.2002. The reasons for passing such order are clear as the appeal was filed but owing to dussera vacation no orders could be passed. The reasons for passing such order are clear as the appeal was filed but owing to dussera vacation no orders could be passed. Moreover the premises in dispute were being used for running a school by the appellants and the handing over of the possession on 5.10.2002 in mid session was found to have serious repercussions on the future of the students persuing their studies in the premises. As such the balance of convenience required at the time of passing the order of status quo ente as on 5.10.2002 the date on which the order of status quo ente restored the possession as it stood prior to 5.10.2002 had been passed the position is continuing and the parties are in agreement that the school is running in the property in dispute. In view of the matter I find no reason to interfere with or vacating the stay order passed on 25.10.2002. Consequently this application filed by the respondent for vacating the stay order dated 25.10.2002 is disposed of accordingly. 5. Moreover in an interim order it is settled law that the court cannot order a new state of affairs but it can certainly order for restoration of the state of things prevailing on the date when the suit/proceedings were filed. 6. This appeal had been filed on 4.10.2002. The possession was taken on 5.10.2002. Hence this court rightly in my opinion ordered for restoration of the status quo ente as prevailing on 5.10.2002.Order of status quo maintained. *******