JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J.: (Oral) - This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the interim order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while admitting the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 herein, the operation of the order dated 04.02.2010 (Annexure P5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, has been stayed. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 25.01.2012 whereby his application for modification of the aforesaid order, was also dismissed. 2. Respondent No.5, in whose favour, the interim order was passed, has filed the caveat petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. In this case, the appellant, on the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridkot, was appointed as Lambardar of village Dhimawali by the Collector vide order dated 27.3.2008 after considering the comparative merit of both the candidates. After appointing him as Lambardar, not only the sanad of Lambardari was issued, but he had also started working on the said post. It is also undisputed fact that before his appointment as such, he had been working as Sarbrah Lambardar being son of the deceased Lambardar. 5. The order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 5.11.2008 on the ground that the appellant could not produce the certificate of appointing him as Sarbrah Lambardar and as such he was not required to sign the sale deeds etc. as Lambardar, as has been done by him in respect of the sale deeds dated 7.7.2006 and 20.9.2006. 6. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 4.2.2010 has set aside the order of the Commissioner. Before the Financial Commissioner, the appellant produced the necessary certificate authorizing him to act as Sarbrah Lambardar of the village. 7. The order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing the writ petition (CWP No.5010 of 2010) in which the aforesaid order was passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The grouse of the appellant is that since the operation of the order dated 4.2.2010 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner has been stayed by the learned Single Judge, at present nobody is functioning as Lambardar in village Dhimawali. In our view, the learned Single Judge totally ignored the fact that even before his appointment as Lambardar, the appellant was working as Sarbrah Lambardar of the village. In our view, the learned Single Judge totally ignored the fact that even before his appointment as Lambardar, the appellant was working as Sarbrah Lambardar of the village. After his appointment as Lambardar by the Collector, not only the sanad of Lambardari was issued, but he had also started functioning on the said post. In such circumstances, the order of the Financial Commissioner should not have been stayed. If the said order of the Financial Commissioner is allowed to be stayed then there will be no Lambardar in the village due to which day to day functions to be performed by the Lambardar will be affected and the villagers will not be able to get their work done. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we vacate the interim order dated 14.11.2011 and dispose of this Letters Patent Appeal with a request to the learned Single Judge to decide the aforesaid writ petition filed by respondent No.5 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. ------------------