S.C. Chaurasia, J.:- Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.P. Dutt Tiwari holding brief of Sri Devi Baksh Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for oppo­site party No. 2, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 11.06.2010 passed by opposite party No. 1, contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revisional Court has remanded the recall application moved by the petitioner for disposal afresh, but, has not stayed the operation of the impugned ex-parte order dated 03.03.2006 by virtue of which, name of Mata Prasad Singh has been mutated in place of Shiv Kumar Singh. His contention is that if the operation of the said order is not stayed, the recall application moved on behalf of the petitioner would become infructuous. 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the recall application moved by the petitioner may be disposed of on merits, but, during pendency of the said application, the operation of the order dated 03.03.2006, may not be stayed. 5. From perusal of the record, it tran­spires that the revisional Court vide impugned order dated 11.06.2010 has allowed the revision and has set aside the orders passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court on the recall application moved by the petitioner and remanded the said applica­tion for disposal afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Since, no finding has been recorded by the revisional Court against the petitioner in the impugned order, I do not find any valid or sufficient ground to interfere in the said order in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. However, it is expedient in the interest of justice that till disposal of the recall application moved by the petitioner, the operation of the ex-parte order dated 03.03.2006 mutating the name of Mata Prasad Singh should remain stayed. 6. However, it is expedient in the interest of justice that till disposal of the recall application moved by the petitioner, the operation of the ex-parte order dated 03.03.2006 mutating the name of Mata Prasad Singh should remain stayed. 6. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the recall application moved on behalf of the petitioner, Arjun Singh, expeditiously, in accordance with law, pref­erably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order of this Court is filed in the said Court. The opera­tion of the impugned order dated 03.03.2006 mutating the name of Mata Prasad Singh shall remain stayed till disposal of said recall application. 7. With these observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.