ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. In an appeal preferred by Mohd. Yusuf and Smt. Shanti Bai Gupta before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg, on 10.11.2016, the Commissioner issued notices to the respondents therein and called for the record and fixed the case for 15.12.2016, and the petitioners herein were also caveators in that case. But before the matter could be taken-up for hearing on 15.12.2016, at the request of respondent No. 1 herein, the date was preponed and the matter was taken-up on 17.11.2016 and without notice to the present petitioners i.e. the caveators therein, interim order was passed staying the effect and operation of the order dated 6.10.2016 which was challenged before the Commissioner and against the said order dated 17.11.2016, this writ petition has been preferred. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned and also the other documents available in the record with utmost circumspection. 3. A careful perusal would show that the petitioners had already filed caveat before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg and they were present when the order dated 10.11.2016 was passed by the learned Commissioner. The matter was fixed for 15.12.2016 as the petitioners herein have questioned the maintainability of the appeal itself. Though the learned Commissioner was entitled to prepone the date, but that could have been done after noticing the present petitioners and hearing them, as they were already present on 10.11.2016. Preponing the date of hearing and passing interim order without notice to the petitioner is not an healthy practise. Learned Commissioner ought to have issued notice on the application for urgent hearing and fixed the case for hearing on the stay application after 15.12.2016 and after hearing the petitioners herein also, interim order could have been passed. 4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sneh Gupta vs. Devi Sarup and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 194 indicated the procedure to be followed, if the hearing of a case is advanced or preponed and held that it should be done with notice to all the parties and concluded as under:- "39. Both the suits were compromised. Indisputably, the date fixed in the matter was July, 1998. The impugned compromise petition, however, was filed on 25.04.1998. For the aforementioned purpose, the date was preponed. Indisputably, the appellant was not informed thereabout. Both the suits were compromised. Indisputably, the date fixed in the matter was July, 1998. The impugned compromise petition, however, was filed on 25.04.1998. For the aforementioned purpose, the date was preponed. Indisputably, the appellant was not informed thereabout. She was not given any notice of preponement of the date..... 47. Whether the preponement of the date was only at the instance of Veena or at the instance of both the parties to the consent is a matter which is of little relevance so far as this Court is concerned inasmuch as the only issue which would arise for our consideration is the consequences of such preponement. If the hearing of a case is preponed, it should be done with notice to all the parties. It is not the case of the first respondent that notice had been given to all the parties or otherwise also they were aware thereof." 5. Applying the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is hereby set aside. The Commissioner is directed to hear the parties afresh on the application for grant of stay/interim relief and pass an order therein within 15 days expeditiously after noticing and hearing all the parties to the proceeding. Parties are directed to appear before the said court on 6.3.2017. It is expected that the senior revenue officers like the Commissioner should be careful in preponing the date of hearing and passing interim order without notice to other side who had already entered appearance in caveat before that court. 6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to costs. 7. Certified copy by tomorrow. Writ petition is partly allowed.