JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J. Appellant's grievance is to an order dated 05.08.2005 dismissing second stay application No.3576/2005 filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed S.B. C.W.P. No.2723/1993 seeking quashing of the decision dated 17.04.1989 passed by the Director, Local Bodies Jaipur as also notices dated 10.01.1989, 11.01.1989 and 18.02.1989 issued by the Administrator Municipal Corporation Kota. 3. The appellant was claiming to be the owner of the properties comprised in Brij Talkies Building at Nayapura, Kota claiming that the same was sold by the State Council to his predecessors in interest on 13.08.1942. It was also prayed that the respondents should be restrained from interfering with appellant's possession. Along with the writ petition appellant filed an application seeking interim stay against the threat of dispossession and restraining appellant from continuing with the on going works of the dwelling unit at the site. 4. Notice was issued in the writ petition and interim stay as claimed by the appellant was granted to him. The stay was extended from time to time. On 17.05.1993 while extending the interim stay it was clarified that on going construction of the appellant would be subject to the final decision in the writ petition. 5. The appellant came across a newspaper report dated 23.05.2005 reporting that the State Government and the Municipal Corporation was likely to take over possession of the site. The appellant filed a second stay application. 6. No effective order being passed in the second stay application the authorities to took possession of the land and building of Brij Talkies Building on 13.06.2005. 7. An application under order 1 Rule 10 read with order 22 Rule 10 for substitution came to be filed by M/s. Brij Talkies, Nayapura, Kota, Bharat Jhammani, Jyoti Jhammani, Gopesh Arora, Chanchal Devi & Radhey Shyam Mittal. The same was dismissed. The second stay application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 05.08.2005 and probably on the understanding that the second stay application was filed by the applicants. 8. Grievance in the appeal is to be the later part of the order dated 05.08.2005 dismissing appellant's second stay application No.3576/2005. 9. In view of the aforenoted facts the appeal is disposed of restoring the second stay application No.3576/2005 filed by the appellant with a direction to the learned Single Judge to decide the same. 8. Grievance in the appeal is to be the later part of the order dated 05.08.2005 dismissing appellant's second stay application No.3576/2005. 9. In view of the aforenoted facts the appeal is disposed of restoring the second stay application No.3576/2005 filed by the appellant with a direction to the learned Single Judge to decide the same. File of S.B. CWP No.2723/1993 has been summoned by us in Court today and we note that the writ petition filed by the appellant is still pending. At this stage we note that instant D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1859/2017 was filed in the year 2005 and was registered as D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.02435/2005. Various orders passed in the appeal would show that it was treated as has been assigned No.02435/2005. 10. Since the appeal has been disposed of the Registry would make necessary correction concerning D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.02435/2005 in its record.