Order I.A. No.3550 of 2014 has been filed with a prayer to pass an order directing the State respondents i.e. respondent nos.1 to 5 to open lock and seal put by them by which the factory of the appellant has been forcibly closed. 2. It is contended that the appellant came in possession over the suit premises after purchasing the suit land by registered sale deed no.3128 dated 17.03.1988 and 3152 dated 18.03.1988 from settlee Bhagwati Prasad Khetan. Thereafter appellant constructed a boundary around the suit land and installed two factories in the name and style of M/s Maa Kalyani Udyog and M/s Jai Maa Kali Udyog Ltd. It is also pointed out that the land was also mutated vide mutation no.406(ii)/9899. 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that B.P.L.E. Case No.244/9192 was decided against the appellant whereafter B.P.L.E. Appeal no.01/98 was preferred but the appellant also lost the same and it was dismissed vide order dated 27.12.1999. Thereafter C.W.J.C. No.1414 of 2000 was preferred before this Hon'ble Court but it stood dismissed on 10.11.2001. Again the matter was agitated by the appellant vide L.P.A. No.681 of 2001 in which a Division Bench of this Court had given liberty to the appellant to obtain order of interim injunction in accordance with law against the State Government and the order dated 13.01.1998 passed in B.P.L.E. Case No.244/9192 was directed to be kept in abeyance. Pursuant to the said order appellant filed petition for grant of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant over the suit land. The learned Sub-Judge pleased to dismiss said petition on 26.07.2004 and then the appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No.43 of 2004 before the District Judge, Dhanbad against said order of refusal of injunction. The appellant succeeded in obtaining injunction order in said Misc. appeal and the respondents/defendants were directed not to interfere with peaceful possession of the appellant and said order was passed on 30.08.2004. Title Suit No.57 of 2004, filed by the appellant, stood dismissed on 25.09.2013 whereafter Title Appeal No.101 of 2013 was filed before the learned Principal District Judge. The appellant succeeded in obtaining injunction order in said Misc. appeal and the respondents/defendants were directed not to interfere with peaceful possession of the appellant and said order was passed on 30.08.2004. Title Suit No.57 of 2004, filed by the appellant, stood dismissed on 25.09.2013 whereafter Title Appeal No.101 of 2013 was filed before the learned Principal District Judge. The appellant again filed petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the appellate Court but the petition was kept pending and it was agreed by and between the parties that the appeal may be disposed of on merit. 4. During pendency of appeal the respondent/State has taken adjournment to advance argument but in between on 25.01.2014 suddenly a lock was put by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad through Circle Officer and the factory premises of the appellant was sealed. 5. It is submitted that there was no occasion for the respondents to put a lock and seal the factory on 25.01.2014 when the appeal was pending and it was at the stage of final disposal. The appellant immediately filed petition on 27.01.2014 before the appellate Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to maintain status quo but no specific order was passed. Since the matter was sub-judice before the appellate Court in which the order 13.01.1998 passed in B.P.L.E. Case no.244/9192 was also under challenge, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad should not have put a lock and seal in the factory which was in running condition at that point of time. It is pointed out that present appeal has been admitted by order dated 31.07.2014 and it is desirable to direct respondent nos.1 to 5, specially the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and Circle Officer to open the lock and seal of the factory of the appellant and permit them to run the factory. Due to sudden closure of the factory, so many workers have been facing starvation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State i.e. respondent nos.1 to 5 have opposed the prayer and submitted that notices were served against the appellant but he did not respond to it. There was no injunction or status quo granted by any competent Court and therefore, the order dated 13.01.1998 passed in B.P.L.E. Case No.244/9192 was executed. 7. There was no injunction or status quo granted by any competent Court and therefore, the order dated 13.01.1998 passed in B.P.L.E. Case No.244/9192 was executed. 7. Be that as it may, this second appeal has been admitted to decide substantial question of law and interim protection was given to the appellant and the respondents were directed not to disturb possession of the appellant. From the events as pointed out above, it is apparent that the dispute prevailing between the parties was sub judice and therefore, it was not expected that representative of the State Government, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of the district, would go to the extent of putting a lock and seal and compel the petitioner to close the factory. Since the appeal has already been admitted, respondent nos.1 to 5 are directed to reopen the lock and seal of the factory premises of the appellant and allow them to run the factory without any hindrance till disposal of this appeal. The order passed by this Court shall be complied with within a week from the date of communication/receipt of this order by the respondents. 8. I.A. No.3550 of 2014 stands disposed of. I.A. disposed of.