JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri H.P. Singh, for the petitioner and Sri K.C. Kishan Srivastava and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, for respondent-3. 2. The writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing consolidation authorities to demarcate chak-134 of village Kadipur, pargana Jaferabad, district Jaunpur allotted to the petitioner, in proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Total area of plot 230 was 1.574 hectare out of which plot 230/2 (area 0.213 hectare) was grove and is chak out. The petitioner was allotted chak-134 which consists two chaks i.e. first chak was on plots 242, 245 and 253 and second chak was on plots 230, 231 and 232. Plot 232 was original holding of the petitioner. In scond chak of the petitioner plot 230 (area 0.039 hectare) has been included.Plot 230 was original holdings of Pyare Lal and his other co-sharers, in which Pyare Lal had 1/4 share. 4. Pyare Lal executed a sale deed dated 07.01.2013 of his 1/4 share in plot 230 to Prema Devi, who filed an objection along with delay condonation application, under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording her name over the land purchased by her through sale deed dated 07.01.2013. The objection was contested by Smt. Shashi Kala and her son Rahul on the ground that land in dispute was attached by Civil Court in O.S. No. 512 of 2009 as such sale deed dated 07.01.2013 is void and the name of Prema Devi cannot be mutated over it. However, Consolidation Officer by order dated 01.02.2014 found that plot 230 was not subject matter of civil suit nor it was attached. On these findings he condoned the delay and rejected objection of respondent-3 and her son. Thereafter, by order dated 05.02.2014 directed for recording the name of Prema Devi over plot 230 (area 0.3935 hectare). Respondent-3 and her son filed two revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 1151 and 1152 of 2013-14) against the aforesaid orders, which were consolidated and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.07.2014 dismissed the revisions. Respondent-3 and her son filed Writ B No. 44195 of 2014 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order dated 25.08.2014. 5. Respondent-3 and her son filed two revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 1151 and 1152 of 2013-14) against the aforesaid orders, which were consolidated and heard together. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.07.2014 dismissed the revisions. Respondent-3 and her son filed Writ B No. 44195 of 2014 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order dated 25.08.2014. 5. Respondent-3 and her son filed a time barred objection under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording their names over khata 247 and deleting the names of Pyare Lal and Prema Devi, along with delay condonation application, which is pending before Consolidation Officer. Prema Devi moved an application on "tahsil diwas" to restrain respondent-3 and her son in interfering with her possession over plot 230/1. This application was heard by the Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 20.01.2015, held that plot 230 was not subject matter of Civil Suit No. 512 of 2009. Before passing the order dated 17.10.2014 by High Court, Pyare Lal had already executed sale deed dated 07.01.2013 of plot 230/1 in favour of Prema Devi. The amendment application moved by respondent-3 and her son for amending Schedule-A of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 512 of 2009 is still pending. On these findings, he directed Assistant Consolidation Officer to restrain respondent-3 and her son in interfering with delivery of possession over the land in dispute to Prema Devi. Assistant Consolidation Officer, however submitted his report dated 23.01.2015 that as on the spot crops are standing as such demarcation of chak would be made after harvesting the crops. 6. In the meantime, respondent-3 and her son filed an application dated 07.04.2015 on "tahsil diwas" stating therein that order of the Consolidation Officer dated 20.01.2015 amounts to contempt of the order of High Court dated 17.10.2014. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 12.04.2015 directed for obtaining opinion of District Government Counsel (Civil) in the matter, who submitted his opinion dated 27.05.2015 that as High Court has directed to maintain status quo by order dated 17.10.2014, which is applicable over the properties which are subject matter of Suit No. 512 of 2009. On the basis of this opinion, Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted another report dated 08.06.2015 that in view of the order of High Court dated 17.10.2014, there is legal problem in demarcation of chak and delivery of possession over it. On the basis of this opinion, Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted another report dated 08.06.2015 that in view of the order of High Court dated 17.10.2014, there is legal problem in demarcation of chak and delivery of possession over it. Hence Prema Devi filed Writ B No. 37928 of 2015, which is being allowed by a separate order passed today as both the writ petitions were heard together. 7. Due to dispute between Prema Devi on one side and Smt. Shashi Kala and Rahul on the other side, delivery of possession over second chak of the petitioner has also been withheld. Although total area of plot 230 was 1.574 hectare in which Pyare Lal had only 1/4 share and a small area of 0.031 hectare of plot 230 has been allotted to the petitioner. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly respondent-3 and her son filed O.S. No. 512 of 2009 against Pyare Lal for grant of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- each to them and creating charge over the properties mentioned in Schedule-A and B of the plaint. Schedule-A consists agricultural land and Schedule-B consists two houses. Respondent-3 is widow of Praveer Kumar Singh son of Pyare Lal and Rahul is son of Praveer Kumar Singh. However in Schedule-A, instead of plot 230, plot 330 has been mentioned. Respondent-3 and Rahul filed an application for amendment, for amending Schedule-A of the plaint of Suit No. 512 of 2009, which is still pending. Respondent-3 and Rahul filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. dated 22.08.2012 for attachment before judgment of the properties mentioned in Schedule-A and B of the plaint. Trial Court by order dated 31.05.2013 allowed the application and directed Pyare lal to give surety within two months that he would not sell the properties mentioned in Schedule-A and B of the plaint. Before passing order dated 31.05.2013, Prema Devi has purchased plot 230 (area 0.3935 hectare) from Pyare Lal through sale deed dated 07.01.2013. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 05.02.2015 directed for recording the name of Prema Devi over plot 230 (area 0.3935 hectare), rejecting the objection of respondent-3 and Rahul. Their revision against the aforesaid order was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.07.2014. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 05.02.2015 directed for recording the name of Prema Devi over plot 230 (area 0.3935 hectare), rejecting the objection of respondent-3 and Rahul. Their revision against the aforesaid order was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.07.2014. Respondent-3 and Rahul filed Writ B No. 44195 of 2014 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order dated 25.08.2014. 9. So far as interim order of this Court dated 17.10.2014 is concerned, interim order is applicable over the subject matter of the suit. As plot 230 is not subject matter of the suit as such interim order has no effect over it. Pyare Lal already sold long before moving amendment application by respondent-3 and Rahul. Suit No. 512 of 2009 was for maintenance against Pyare Lal, thus in this suit no claim has been made over the property. Supreme Court in Hamda Ammal Vs. Avadiappa Pathan, (1991) 1 SCC 715 has held that order of attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. will have no effect on the property sold prior to attachment. As such respondent-3 and Rahul have no right to interfere with demarcation of chak-134 and delivery of possession over it to the petitioner. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents-1 and 2 are directed to demarcate chak-134 of the petitioner and deliver possession to him forth with.