Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the respondent and is directed against the order dated March 1, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2013 thereby disposing of an application for stay. Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that there is a dispute between the owner of the land and the developer. By virtue of an agreement, the developer/respondent started construction on the land of the appellant. But, a dispute arose as to payment. According to the owner of the land, he paid a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- to the developer/respondent whereas the work had been done by the developer to the tune of Rs.1.5 lakh only. Such an assessment had been done by a certified engineer at the instance of the appellant. Mr. Moinak Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that unless stay is granted, the owner of the land would be deprived from making any construction on his own land. Mr. Shahjahan Hossain, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party has referred to the provisions of Sections 35, 14 & 16 of the Specific Relief Act. He has also referred to the decision of AIR 1988 Delhi 162 relating to the provision of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act on negative covenant etc., 1986 (2) Current Civil Cases 633 relating to grant of injunction and AIR 1993 Orisa 78 on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 when to be entertained ex parte. Since the impugned order is pre-matured in the sense that the respondent did not appear and no joint measurement has been done, I am of the view that there is no scope of discussing the said decisions. The decision of AIR 2012 Supreme Court 437, particularly paragraph no.11 to show that if the stay is granted at this stage, if further construction is made by the appellant or the property encumbered, in any way, it may be difficult for final settlement of the dispute between the two parties. However, the learned Trial Judge has not decided anything finally. However, the learned Trial Judge has not decided anything finally. Anyway, from the materials on record, I find that the learned Appellate Court has observed in clear terms that the assessment of the works done by the developer shall be done by a valuer in presence of both the parties and if it is not done, future complication may arise. The ratio of the decision of AIR 2012 SC 437 would be applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, the Appellate Court disposed of the application for stay with liberty to pray for stay to the Appellate Court again in presence of the respondent/plaintiff after his appearance. Since the order bears no decision exclusively, I do not find any scope of interference with the impugned order. This application is disposed of with such observations. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.