JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others: “(i) Issue writ of certiorari or a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.6.2016 passed by the respondent no. 1 / learned Commissioner (Kumaun Division), Nainital passed in Z.A. Appeal no. 29 of 2015-16 contained in Annexure no. 1 as also the proceedings of the said appeal. (ii) Issue a writ of prohibition or a writ, order or direction in nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent no. 1 from proceeding with Z.A. Appeal no. 29 of 2015-16. (iii) Issue writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 20.6.2016 passed by the opposite party no. 1 and not to proceed with Z.A. Appeal no. 29 of 2015-16 during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition. (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction/action to initiating suo moto action for contempt in exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution and to punish the respondent number 16 for willfully and deliberately violating the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and for overwriting and overreaching judicial pronouncements..” 2. An interim relief application has been filed with the following prayer: “That the Hon’ble Court may very graciously be pleased to stay the operation of order dated 20.6.2016 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Z.A. Appeal number 29 of 2015-16 and may further be pleased to stay the proceedings in the said appeal pending before the learned respondent no. 1, till the disposal of present petition.” 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards order dated 15.9.2015, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 689 of 2015 (M/S). The said petition was filed on behalf of Smt. Rama Devi and Ravindra Mohan, who were the successors-in-interest of Vijay Kumar, who was respondent no. 5 in writ petition no. 689 of 2015 (M/S). The last paragraph of judgment dated 15.9.2015 (Annexure-7) is being reproduced herein below for convenience: “In view of what has been elucidated above, I find that there is merit in this petition. 5 in writ petition no. 689 of 2015 (M/S). The last paragraph of judgment dated 15.9.2015 (Annexure-7) is being reproduced herein below for convenience: “In view of what has been elucidated above, I find that there is merit in this petition. It is hereby allowed Ex consequenti with the result the impugned orders dated 17.5.2010, passed by the Assistant Collector, Haldwani District Nainital in the revenue suit as well as the orders passed on 16.4.2013 and 29.1.2015 by the Additional Commissioner (Kumaon Division), Nainital in the revision, as has been indicated above, are hereby set aside. As a consequence, the order dated 09.01.2007, passed by the Assistant Collector, shall remain effective and in force and the mutation in all revenue records shall be done accordingly.” 4. Respondent no. 5 Vijay Kumar filed Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court without getting any success. Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed on 23.11.2015 (Annexure-8). 5. Shiv Charan Singh Mehta and others, who are the successors of Vijay Kumar, purchased the land during the pendency of case and in the interregnum filed revenue appeal against Smt. Rama Devi and another (petitioners herein). An interim relief application was also filed on their behalf alleging that, under the garb of order dated 09.01.2007 (Assistant Collector, I Class), Smt. Rama Devi and others were selling the land in dispute, which should be stayed till the disposal of revenue appeal. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Commissioner stayed the operation of order dated 09.01.2007 and fixed 04.7.2016 for filing objections/hearing. 7. Aggrieved with such an order dated 20.6.2016, present writ petition has been filed. 8. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that respondent no. 1/Commissioner has not only exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him, but has acted in an outrageously contemptuous manner. He has not only over reached the decision rendered by this Court in WPMS no. 06.8.2015, which stands affirmed by the Apex Court, but also has shown scant respect for judicial pronouncements. Learned counsel also contended that respondent no. 1 was not possessed with the jurisdiction to pass any orders in the appeal filed before him, inasmuch as, the appeal was time barred and the delay condonation application was pending. The appellants before the Commissioner approached the said Court with soiled hands, and did not disclose all the relevant facts in the appeal. 1 was not possessed with the jurisdiction to pass any orders in the appeal filed before him, inasmuch as, the appeal was time barred and the delay condonation application was pending. The appellants before the Commissioner approached the said Court with soiled hands, and did not disclose all the relevant facts in the appeal. They suppressed material facts. 9. In a revenue suit filed by Smt. Rama Devi and Ravindra Mohan against Vijay Kumar and others, under section 229-B UPZA & LR Act, the suit was decreed by Assistant Collector First Class, vide order dated 09.01.2007. It was an ex parte decree against the defendants. The defendants Vijay Kumar and others filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in the said Court, which was allowed vide order dated 17.5.2010. The petitioners filed the revision before the Addl. Commissioner, who, vide order dated 16.4.2013 affirmed the order passed by learned Assistant Collector. Against the same, the petitioner filed the revenue revision, which was dismissed on 29.01.2015. Still aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed a writ petition, which was decided on 15.9.2015. The writ petition was allowed. The orders impugned were set-aside. Special Leave to Appeal was preferred against the judgment delivered by this Court, which SLP was dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 argued, among other things, that even if the said respondent could not succeed in setting aside the ex parte decree, her right to challenge the decree, by way of filing the statutory appeal, still remains intact, and that is why, she along with others challenged the decree dated 09.01.2007 passed by Assistant Collector First Class before Commissioner in Revenue Appeal. Prima facie, this Court agrees with such submissions of learned senior counsel for respondent no. 3. 11. But, there is another aspect of the matter. Learned Commissioner, while passing the interim order in Revenue Appeal no. 29/2015-16, ought to have discussed all these aspects, while granting interim stay. Learned Commissioner also ought to have discussed the implications of High Court order, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The fact also remains that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in time barred Revenue Appeal is still pending with the Commissioner. In any case, the order impugned dated 20.6.2016 is interferable and, therefore, impugned order is liable to be stayed. 12. Interim relief application is allowed. The fact also remains that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in time barred Revenue Appeal is still pending with the Commissioner. In any case, the order impugned dated 20.6.2016 is interferable and, therefore, impugned order is liable to be stayed. 12. Interim relief application is allowed. The effect and operation of order dated 20.6.2016 is hereby stayed. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not stayed the proceedings of Revenue Appeal, pending before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. 14. As prayed, four weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. 15. List this matter on 12.8.2016. 16. Let certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, within 48 hours, on payment of usual charges.