Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for the issuance of writ of Certiorari, to quash the order of the 1st Respondent dated 04.10.2011 in R.P.2/2011 A1. 2. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that Arulmigu Koneri Perumal Temple situated in S.No.348/10, Pallakanur Kattu Valivu, Soorapallai Village was established by the forefathers of the petitioner 200 years back. 3. The forefathers of the petitioner were managing the said Village Temple, and continued as hereditary trustee of the temple. 4. A dispute arose between the father of the petitioner namely K. Arumugam and his brothers on the one hand and T. Ramasamy Pillai and Perumal Gounder on the other hand claiming hereditary trusteeship of the temple. 5. The petitioner's father and his brothers filed Original Application in O.A.No.120/1979 before the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), HR & C.E., Department, Madras, under Section 63(b) of the HR & C.E., Act, 1959. 6. On directions of the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) HR & C.E., the Inspector of HR & C.E., Mettur, conducted a field inspection to verify the respective claim of the parties, and submitted a report on 4.6.1981, before the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) HR & C.E. 7. After considering the report, the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) HR & C.E., vide order dated 30.11.1981 allowed the application filed by the father of the petitioner and his brothers, holding that the management of the Arulmigu Koneri Perumal Temple is hereditary, and that the father of the petitioner and his brothers were entitled to hold the office as hereditary trustees. 8. It is the submission of the petitioner that in spite of the orders by the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) HR& C.E., the 4th Respondent did not hand over the three Panchaloga idols of the temple, so as to enable them to perform pooja. 9. The Assistant Commissioner of HR & C.E., vide order dated 26.9.1983, directed the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalakandapuram to seize the idols from the father of the 4th Respondent namely Perumal and hand over them to hereditary trustees of the temple, and also to give protection for daily poojas and special day poojas. According to the petitioner, the order has attained finality. 10. According to the petitioner, the order has attained finality. 10. It is the submission of the petitioner that the 4th Respondent without disclosing the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) HR & C.E., filed a suit O.S. No. 523 of 1985 in the Court of D.M.C. Mettur, which was decreed against the petitioner. 11. The appeal filed by the petitioner and other defendants was also dismissed. The Second Appeal filed by the petitioner and other defendants in this Court was also dismissed, as against the Respondents 2 to 8 for not filing Batta. Now, the petitioner is taking steps to get the second appeal restored, for decision on merits. 12. It is the submission of the petitioner, that as the 4th Respondent was not allowing the petitioner to perform pooja, he approached the Assistant Commissioner HR & C.E., for restraining the 4th Respondent from interfering in performance of pooja by the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed. 13. The 4th Respondent being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner HR & C.E., has filed a Revision against the order passed in favour of the petitioner. 14. The 1st Respondent namely the Joint Commissioner of HR & C.E., while entertaining the Revision Petition filed by the 4th Respondent, has granted stay of operation of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of HR & C.E., in favour of the petitioner. 15. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of stay granted in favour of the 4th Respondent, has approached this Court for quashing the order of stay granted by the 1st Respondent in favour of the 4th Respondent. 16. Though in the normal circumstances the writ petition against the interim order is not maintainable, but reading of the impugned order shows that though the application moved by the petitioner was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, the 4th Respondent in Revision, has not impleaded the petitioner as a party. Therefore, the Revision as framed is prima facie bad in Law as it suffers from non joinder of necessary party. It is not open to the 1st Respondent to pass adverse orders against the petitioner without hearing the petitioner, nor an order passed in favour of a party can be stayed unless he is a party to the proceedings. In absence of the petitioner being a party, he cannot approach the respondent No.1 for vacation of ex-parte stay. It is not open to the 1st Respondent to pass adverse orders against the petitioner without hearing the petitioner, nor an order passed in favour of a party can be stayed unless he is a party to the proceedings. In absence of the petitioner being a party, he cannot approach the respondent No.1 for vacation of ex-parte stay. 17. The impugned order, therefore, is outcome of non-application of mind, as the 1st Respondent has not bothered to see whether the necessary parties are impleaded in Revision or not. 18. The impugned order affects the right of the petitioner to perform pooja, therefore, no stay could be granted without the petitioner being a party. However, it can not be disputed that in case the petitioner was party then it was open to respondent No.1 to grant ex-parte interim stay, as in that event petitioner could move for vacation of stay. 19. The 1st Respondent in fact should have directed the 4th Respondent, to implead the petitioner before hearing the Revision petition or considering the interim application. 20. The 1st Respondent has passed the impugned order of say in the absence of necessary party, therefore, it cannot be sustained in law. As a matter of fact the revision as framed is itself not competent. 21. As the petitioner is left remediless, as being not a party, he cannot go to respondent No.1 for vacation of the ex-parte stay order. 22. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of stay is set aside. However, this order will not debar the the 4th Respondent from moving appropriate application for impleading the petitioner as a party in the Revision Petition and thereafter move a fresh application for stay, which be considered afresh, after hearing both the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected M. P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011 are closed.