ORDER : Heard Mr. Pandey Ashok Nath, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “For quashing the order dated 28th October, 2005 passed by Circle Officer, Jamshedpur in B.P.L.E. case no. 153/2002-03 whereby and whereunder the Circle Officer has passed an order directing the petitioner to remove structure over the premises, failing which the encroachment will be removed forcefully or in the alternative direction may be issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, East, Jamshedpur to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner vide B.P.L.E. Appeal no.80/2005-06 against the aforesaid order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur in B.P.L.E. Case no. 153/2002-03 in accordance with the law by speaking order; And it is further prayed Respondents may be restrained to forceful dispossession of the petitioner from the house/premises wherein he is residing along with his family members since from last more than 30 years till the appeal filed by the petitioner is disposed of or the writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending before this Hon’ble Court.” 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the appeal which was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Circle Officer in B.P.L.E. Case No. 153 of 2002-03 was pending before the appellate authority in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 80 of 2005-06 and the cause of action for filing the writ petition was that in spite of the petitioner appearing on various dates before the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal was not been taken up. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 16.02.2006 and accordingly the aforesaid Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 501 of 2006 has been filed so as to challenge the appellate order. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the final order has been passed by the appellate authority and now the petitioner will have to challenge the appellate order on its merits and if this Interlocutory application being I.A. No. 501 of 2006 is allowed, the same will change the nature of the writ petition and accordingly the petition for amendment may not be allowed. 6. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the instant writ petition was filed at the stage when the appeal was not being taken up by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and during the pendency of this appeal, the final order has been passed by the appellate authority which is dated 16.02.2006. The petitioner has challenged the appellate order by filing an Interlocutory application being I.A. No.501 of 2006. This Court finds that the petitioner has a fresh cause of action and if this Interlocutory application is allowed, the same will change the nature of the writ petition as the appellate order has to be challenged by the petitioner on its merits.