ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that learned Collector passed an order directing the demolition of construction and correction of record. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code along with the stay application before the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division Sagar. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.2.2020 by assigning single reason that prima facie no relevance/justification is shown for grant of interim order. Hence, interim prayer was rejected. 3. Criticizing this order, Shri Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejection of stay application is on improper and irrelevant ground. The Court below has erroneously held that no relevance/justification is shown by the petitioner when the justification for praying for stay cannot be doubted. 4. Shri B.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 5. No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties. 6. This is trite that while considering the stay application, the authority/Court below was required to examine whether there exists a prima facie case and whether other factors, namely balance of convenience and irreparable injury are in favour of petitioner. The impugned order shows that these factors have not been considered while rejecting the stay application. Indeed, an erroneous finding is given that no relevance/justification is shown for the stay. When the petitioner who is seeking protection against a demolition order and approached the authority with a stay application, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was no 'relevance' or justification of the stay application. Since the interim prayer was not considered on the anvil of relevant factors on which it needs to be tested, the said order dated 24.2.2020 is set aside. 7. The matter is restored to the file of learned Additional Commissioner. The parties shall appear before the said authority on the next date of hearing and it shall be the duty of the learned Additional Commissioner to rehear the parties on the question of stay application and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petition is disposed of.