Vikram Nath, J.: - Heard Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioners, Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel represent­ing respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. There was a lis between Gangu and others (predecessors of the petitioners) on one side and Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her four sisters (daughters of Het Ram) on the other side. The Consolidation Authori­ties held in favour of Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sisters. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Courts, Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sis­ters had transferred Plot Nos. 960/1, 971/1, 982/1, 989, 1008/2, 1010/1, 1010/2, 1011 and 1013 by means of a sale-deed dated 13.4.1970 in favour of Ali Hasan, father of Mazhar Hasan. Against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, two writ petitions were filed by Gangu Singh and others, being the Writ Petition Nos. 3620 of 1979 and 4216 of 1979, which were consoli­dated and decided vide common judgment dated 20.7.2005. It would be worthwhile to note here that Writ Petition No. 3620 of 1979 was filed by Gangu and others against Ali Hasan, purchaser of some of the plots from Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sisters and Writ Petition No. 4216 of 1979 was filed by Gangu impleading Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sisters. This Court allowed the writ petitions and recorded that Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sisters failed to execute the decree of eviction within limi­tation, the execution proceedings were dismissed as barred by time and further as Smt. Ram Murti Devi and others having not entered into possession at any stage after the decree, their rights stood extin­guished. Once the rights of Smt. Ram Murti Devi and others stood extinguished, Ali Hasan who was vendee from them would also not get any right. 3. Against the judgment of this Court dated 20.7.2005, only one special leave petition was filed by the respondent No. 3, i.e. against the judgment in the Writ Petition No. 3620 of 1979. Once the rights of Smt. Ram Murti Devi and others stood extinguished, Ali Hasan who was vendee from them would also not get any right. 3. Against the judgment of this Court dated 20.7.2005, only one special leave petition was filed by the respondent No. 3, i.e. against the judgment in the Writ Petition No. 3620 of 1979. The Apex Court vide judgment dated 9.1.2008 allowed the .Civil Appeal No. 186 of 2008, arising out of the SLP No. 25863 of 2005, Mazhar Hasan v. Gangu Singh and others, holding that the rights of Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sis­ters would not stand extinguished and, therefore, the rights given to Ali Hasan un­der the sale deed would also be valid. Accordingly the judgment of the High Court was set aside. 4. In the meantime after the judg­ment of the High Court, Gangu Singh and others, filed an application under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on 29.11.2005 for incorporating the judgment of the High Court dated 20.7.2005. The respondent No. 3 objected to the said application on the ground that the judgment of the High Court having been set aside by the Apex Court, there was no question of maintainability of any applica­tion under Rule 109-A of the Rules. On the other hand the petitioners pressed their application on the ground that as the judgment of the High Court had been set aside by the Apex Court only with regard to the Writ Petition No. 3620 of 1979 i.e. in favour of the respondent No. 3 only and as Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sisters did not challenge the judgment in so far as it related to the Writ Petition No. 4216 of 1979, the same had become final and ought to be implemented. The Consolidation Of­ficer after considering the material on rec­ord came to the conclusion that the appli­cation under Rule 109-A of the Rules was not maintainable and accordingly rejected the same by order dated 4.6.2010. Against the said order the petitioners have filed an appeal, which is pending before the Settle­ment Officer Consolidation, Bijnor. The said appeal has been filed on 18.6.2010. It is for disposal of the said appeal that a writ of mandamus has been prayed by means of this writ petition. 5. Against the said order the petitioners have filed an appeal, which is pending before the Settle­ment Officer Consolidation, Bijnor. The said appeal has been filed on 18.6.2010. It is for disposal of the said appeal that a writ of mandamus has been prayed by means of this writ petition. 5. Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned Coun­sel for the respondent No. 3 (caveator) has submitted that filing of the application un­der Rule 109-A of the Rules was a futile exercise as the judgment of the High Court having already been set aside by the Apex Court, there was no question of implemen­tation of the judgment of the High Court. He has further submitted that the Apex Court had already clarified in its judgment that the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Offi­cer stood restored. It is further submitted that the appeal itself having been filed in the month of June, 2010, this petition is premature for issuance of a mandamus for early disposal of the appeal. 6. Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has submitted that the respondent No. 3 in the garb of the order passed by the Apex Court is interfering in the possession of the peti­tioners over the plots which were not pur­chased by Ali Hasan and had remained with Smt. Ram Murti Devi, and her sisters, over which the petitioners have continued in possession throughout. It has further been submitted that Smt. Ram Murti Devi, her sisters or their heirs did not come for­ward to either file special leave petition before the Apex Court nor they have ever claimed any right or possession from the petitioners. The petitioners are continuing in possession over the plots which re­mained with Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sisters and were not sold to Ali Hasan, fa­ther of the respondent No. 3. It is also submitted that the urgency for filing the writ petition arose as the respondent No. 3 has been repeatedly making efforts to dis­possess the petitioners from the plots which had remained with Smt. Ram Murti Devi and her sisters and had not been purchased by Ali Hasan. In the circumstances he has submitted that the instant petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus for disposal of the appeal and till disposal of the appeal the interest of the petitioners may be pro­tected. 7. In the circumstances he has submitted that the instant petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus for disposal of the appeal and till disposal of the appeal the interest of the petitioners may be pro­tected. 7. From the above facts and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the respondent No. 3 is entitled to retain possession of the plots purchased by his father Ali Hasan by sale-deed dated 13.4.1970. The respondent No. 3 cannot claim and in fact cannot have any right over the plots which were not purchased by Ali Hasan and which had remained with Smt. Ram Murti Devi, her sisters or their heirs. 8. In view of above, direction is is­sued to the Settlement Officer Consolida­tion, Bijnor to decide the pending appeal, referred to above, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that both the parties shall co-operate in the hearing of the appeal. Till disposal of the appeal the parties shall maintain status quo with re­gard to the possession over the plots which have not been purchased by Ali Hasan, father of the respondent No. 3, under the sale-deed dated 13.4.1970. 9. Petition stands disposed of as above. Petition Disposed Of.