JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Partition order dated 21.6.2016, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in proceedings initiated by respondents No. 1 to 8, was assailed by petitioners herein before Sub Divisional Collector by filing an appeal accompanying stay application under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On 19.1.2017, on application of petitioners, Sub Divisional Collector, pending application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, by referring application filed by petitioners under Order 41 Rule 5 with time barred appeal proposed against order dated 21.6.2016, passed ad interim ex parte injunction order, staying the said order passed by Assistant Collector in partition proceedings, whereupon, after service, an application under Order 41 Rule 3A and Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. and Section 16 of H.P. Land Revenue Act was preferred by respondents contesting appeal, for review/recalling of order dated 19.1.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Collector in application under Order 41 Rule 5. 3. Petitioners herein filed reply to the application and after considering rival contention of parties, Sub Divisional Collector reviewed his order vide impugned order dated 30.5.017 and suspended ad interim stay granted by him, on the ground that unless application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is decided in favour of petitioners, there is no appeal registered and pending before him, and also, the application for interim stay under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C. and before allowing application for condonation of delay, as envisaged in Order 41 Rule 3A (3) C.P.C., no stay of execution of impugned order can be passed in such appeal. 4. Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C. provides that Court shall proceed to deal with the appeal under Rule 11 only after finally deciding the application for condonation of delay and therefore, an order for stay of execution of decree, in an application preferred under Order 41 Rule 5 C.P.C., against which appeal is proposed to be filed, shall not be made, unless the appeal is not considered under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. 5. It is contended that application under Order 41 Rule 3A (3) C.P.C. read with Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C and Section 16 of H.P. Land Revenue Act was filed by respondents herein, beyond limitation period of 90 days and delay in making the said application, as required under proviso (b) of Section 16 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, was not explained much less satisfactorily either in the said application or in separate application for condonation of delay and therefore, Sub Divisional Collector has committed an illegality in entertaining the said application and consequently suspending his order dated 19.1.2017 vide impugned order dated 30.5.2017. It is true that unless sufficient cause, satisfying the Court, preventing applicant from preferring review within 90 days, is explained, as required in proviso (b) of Section 16 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, review petition/application is not to be entertained. But this issue is not relevant for the reason that under Section 16 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, Sub Divisional Collector himself also was empowered to review his mistake or error apparent on the face of record and in absence of validly constituted application before him, he had committed a mistake and this error was apparent on face of record. Therefore, irrespective of non-entertainable time barred application for review, Sub Divisional Collector has rightly suspended his order dated 19.1.2017 passed in non-existing application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for want of existence of appeal before decision in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. Order 41 Rule 3A (3) C.P.C. prohibits Courts from staying execution of decree under challenge in appeal before deciding to hear the appeal after hearing it under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C., but this provision is to be interpreted with reference to entire scheme of this provision. 7. Order 41 Rule 3A (3) C.P.C. relates to a situation where application under Order 41 Rule 3A Sub Rule (1) explaining delay in filing appeal has been allowed under Sub Rule (2) but appeal is yet to be heard for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. In such eventuality Court shall not make an order for the stay of execution of decree against which the appeal is preferred to be filed, so long as the Court does not, after hearing under Rule 11, decide to hear the appeal. Question of passing of interim order in appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 3A (3) shall arise only after deciding the application under Sub Rule (2) preferred under Sub Rule (1). Therefore, Sub Rule (3) will come in to play only after completion of process under Sub Rule (2). 8. Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C. ensures that filing of time barred appeal must be accompanied by application for condonation of delay explaining sufficient cause which prevented filing of appeal in time and final decision on the said application prior to proceeding to deal with the appeal and also considering the said appeal under Rule 11 C.P.C. before staying execution of impugned decree is mandatory. But it does not deal a situation of application pending adjudication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and application for interim stay filed therein. 9. Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C. provides procedure of filing time barred appeal but does not empower the Court for condonation of delay. Substantive provision empowering Court to condone delay is in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is no specific provision dealing with grant of interim relief during pendency of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Therefore, in separate and distinct proceeding under Section 5 of Limitation Act, independent of appeal, applicant can prefer an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for interim order during pendency of this proceeding and Court is not prohibited from passing any interim order in such application exercising its inherent powers for ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the Court, in such proceeding pending application for condonation of delay, for the reason that prohibition under Sub Rule (3) of Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C, for staying impugned decree, will be operative only at the stage when appeal, before Court, is pending for hearing and that situation will come only in case application, as prescribed under Sub Rule (1), filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, has been allowed. Sub Rule (3) prescribes procedure to be followed after allowing application under Sub Rule (2) preferred in compliance of procedure provided in Sub Rule (1). 10. Sub Rule (3) prescribes procedure to be followed after allowing application under Sub Rule (2) preferred in compliance of procedure provided in Sub Rule (1). 10. Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C. does not prohibit Court from passing an interim order staying execution of order in an application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed in application under Section 5 of Limitation Act which in itself provides complete mechanism for condonation of delay in preferring remedy available within prescribed time and in such proceeding a separate application for grant of interim stay under Section 151 C.P.C. is also maintainable and such an application is not to be governed by order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C. and for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of law, if Court thinks necessary to stay execution of impugned decree pending hearing of application for condonation of delay, it can certainly stay execution during pendency of application for condonation of delay prior to admission of appeal. There is no prohibition for the Court to pass an interim order in an application independent of appeal filed in distinct proceeding under Section 5 of Limitation Act to do substantial justice. 11. Proceeding under Section 5 of Limitation Act is an independent proceeding and condonation of delay is precondition for registration of time barred appeal and in absence of appeal, application for stay filed with appeal does also not exist. In present case, there was no appeal pending before Sub Divisional Collector, as the appeal was yet to be registered, only after condonation of delay, if any, and as such there was no application for interim stay pending before him. Admittedly, there is no separate application for stay, filed in proceeding under Section 5 of Limitation Act by petitioners, praying for interim stay of impugned order during pendency of the application for condonation of delay. There was no occasion for Sub Divisional Commissioner to pass an order granting interim stay against order dated 21.6.2016. Therefore, interim order dated 19.1.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Collector was without an application pending before him and as such he had no alternative, except to review and suspend the said order vide order dated 30.5.2017. 12. There was no occasion for Sub Divisional Commissioner to pass an order granting interim stay against order dated 21.6.2016. Therefore, interim order dated 19.1.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Collector was without an application pending before him and as such he had no alternative, except to review and suspend the said order vide order dated 30.5.2017. 12. I find no force in another contention raised on behalf of petitioners that Sub Divisional Collector was not competent to review his own order for want of necessary sanction under Section 16 of H.P. Land Revenue Act as the said Section 16 provides that for correction of a mistake or error apparent on face of record, a revenue officer either of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, is empowered to modify, reverse or confirm any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessor in office by reviewing the same. As per proviso (a) to this Section, Commissioner or Collector is not required to obtain sanction of immediately superior Revenue Officer to review any order passed by himself. In present case order has been reviewed by the same officer passed by him as Sub Divisional Collector and there was error apparent on the face of record as without existence of appeal and application for stay, interim order dated 19.1.2017 was passed and the said mistake/error was apparent on face of record. Therefore, I find no material irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by Sub Divisional Collector. 13. Therefore, I find no material irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by Sub Divisional Collector. 13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that partition order dated 21.6.2016 was passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade without affording any opportunity to them to file any objection and also without serving them and for that reason petitioners were not having knowledge of the said order and immediately after having knowledge of order passed by Assistant Collector, they approached Sub Divisional Collector by filing an appeal with stay application, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, but inadvertently no separate application could be filed for grant of ad interim stay against order dated 21.6.2016 passed by Assistant Collector, during pendency of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and now faced with situation as discussed above, he seeks permission to withdraw present petition with liberty to file an appropriate application for grant of interim stay against execution and implementation of order dated 21.6.2016 passed by Assistant Collector during pendency of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act before Sub Divisional Collector (Rural), Shimla and he further prays for direction to learned Sub Divisional Collector to consider the said stay application, as an application filed along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, at the first instance and to hear the same and pass interim order, pending application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, without insisting for service of all respondents. 14. Court exists for doing substantial justice and parties should not suffer merely for technicalities of procedure. Therefore, taking holistic view of facts and circumstances of the case, liberty as prayed for, is granted and petition is disposed of as dismissed as withdrawn with further direction that the petitioners shall approach Sub Divisional Collector by filing appropriate application for grant of interim stay pending application under Section 5 of Limitation Act on 13.6.2017 i.e. next date of hearing fixed by Sub Divisional Collector and in case such application is preferred by petitioners the same shall be taken up by Sub Divisional Collector as an application for grant of ad interim stay filed along with application for condonation of delay and for grant of ad interim stay, he shall not insist service of all respondents, before considering the said application at first instance. Till consideration of the said application, to be filed by petitioners for grant of ad interim stay, partition order dated 21.6.2016 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade shall remain kept in abeyance. On failure in filing the said application partition order dated 21.6.2016 shall become operative. 15. Needless to say that on passing of order by Sub Divisional Collector, granting or declining interim stay against order dated 21.6.2016 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, direction of this Court to keep the said order in abeyance shall be inoperative. In case of adverse orders, concerned aggrieved party will definitely have remedy to assail the same in appropriate proceedings. 16. With above observations, petition stands dismissed as withdrawn along with pending applications.