JUDGMENT Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhoom in Enquiry Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the said order, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the disputed land to be attached by the State. Against the said order, the petitioners approached the Court of Sessions by filing a revision application being Revision Application No. 60/2013. The petitioners also by a separate application praying that the execution and implementation of the said judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhoom be stayed till the disposal of the Revision Petition. The learned Sessions Judge, however, merely issued a notice to the Respondents to the revision Petition. He did not take any decision with respect to the question of stay. The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of the Court of Sessions to consider their application for stay during the pendency of the revision application and have approached this Court by tiling the present Petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, who tried to make submissions on merits of their respective claims. In my opinion, such discussion on merits would be out of place, in the context of the real question that needs to be determined in the present Petition. Undoubtedly, the revision application filed by the petitioners is pending before the Court of Sessions. The petitioners have been threatened that the disputed land will be attached. The petitioners have moved the Court of Sessions promptly and have also applied for stay of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent on the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was dealing with the revision application, to consider and decide the Stay Application. He could not have simply ignored the Stay Application and if at all he wanted some time before he could decide the stay application, he should have passed some ad-interim orders in the matter. If he was of the view that no interim protection was necessary, he could have rejected the application for stay, by giving his reasons in support of such view. 4. If he was of the view that no interim protection was necessary, he could have rejected the application for stay, by giving his reasons in support of such view. 4. In my opinion, since the petitioners were entitled to have their application for stay filed by them in the revision proceedings before the Sessions Court, considered and decided on merits, and since the same has not been considered and/or decided at all by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is necessary to give appropriate directions to the Revisional Court, in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. By the very nature of the application and the relief sought for, keeping it pending without passing any order, would not operate evenly against both the parties. 5. The Revisional Court shall decide the revision application itself, as far as possible, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. In case, the Revisional Court is unable to decide the Revision application itself within the period of one month, it shall pass appropriate orders on the Stay Application filed by the petitioners. 6. The question of disposal of the crop, said to be standing on the disputed land may also be decided on an application of either of the parties, by the Revisional Court itself. 7. Interim relief granted by this Court shall remain in force till this order is received by the Court of Sessions and for a period of one month thereafter. The petitioners shall be at liberty to pray before the Revisional Court for extension of the stay, if the revision application, for some reason or reasons, remains undecided even after expiry of the aforesaid period. 8. Needless to say that the Revisional Court shall decide the revision application, including the prayers for interim relief by hearing the parties and in accordance with law; and keeping in mind that no opinion on merits of the respective claims has been expressed by this Court. 9. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. Ordered accordingly.