ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.6804/2023, which is an application for deleting the name of respondents No.3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No.3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are profarma parties and as per information received they are stated to be dead, therefore, he prays that since all the respondents are proforma parties, he be permitted to deleted their names in the memo of petition. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application and the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, I.A. No.6804/2023 is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the memo of petition during the course of the day. 5. Heard the matter with the consent with the parties. 6. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an interim order dated 14.7.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Appeal No.59/2022-23, whereby while hearing an appeal against the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer though initially the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was stayed but later on vide impugned order the application for stay was rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a limited ground that the second appeal against the order of Sub Divisional Officer preferred by the present petitioner is pending adjudication but the learned Additional Commissioner without any rhyme and reason had rejected the application for stay, though initially the stay was granted. It was further argued that due to the discontinuance of the temporary stay order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the respondents herein are encroaching upon the preferred portions of the land in dispute, as the order of the Sub Divisional Officer which is in favour of the present respondents allows them to hold the partition upon the said portion. 8. It was further argued that due to the discontinuance of the temporary stay order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the respondents herein are encroaching upon the preferred portions of the land in dispute, as the order of the Sub Divisional Officer which is in favour of the present respondents allows them to hold the partition upon the said portion. 8. It was further argued that father of the petitioner No.1 had initially purchased the land in dispute by way of a sale deed dated 13.11.1980, which includes 10 chunks of land admeasuring 1 bigha and 8 biswa and since his father and thereafter petitioner No.1 is in possession thereof and even the name of father of the petitioner No.1 was mutated in the revenue records and thereafter the name of the petitioner has been mutated therein and since the petitioner No.1 is the lawful owner of the land in dispute, is entitled to have complete possession over the said portion of the land. 9. It was further argued that petitioner No.2 is a company in which petitioner No.1 is one of the Directors and is owner of 5000 equity shares i.e. holder of 50% shareholding in the company. It was further argued that since there was a continuous intervention of the respondents, therefore, over the land of the petitioners a civil suit No.181/2004 was filed, which was dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 11.8.2005. The first appeal No.184/2005 preferred against the said judgment and decree was allowed vide judgment dated 13.3.2006 and the petitioners were held to receive their choice of portion upon the said disputed land. 10. It was further argued that in the light of judgement and decree dated 13.3.2006 an application for partition of holding with respect to the disputed land under section 178 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, was moved before the Court of Tehsildar, which was dismissed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 15.7.2019. 11. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 12.3.2020 and order of Tehsildar was set aside and consequently order for partition of holding of the Bhumiswami was passed. 12. 11. Against the said dismissal, an appeal was preferred before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 12.3.2020 and order of Tehsildar was set aside and consequently order for partition of holding of the Bhumiswami was passed. 12. It was further argued that since the said order was not based upon the documents available on record, all the co-tenure holders were not called upon, a portion of holding was not fulfilled and likewise in wake of the said major lacunas the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 10.12.2020, was not found to be proper and, therefore, a review petition under section 51 of MP Land Revenue Code, was preferred against the said order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.10.2020. Challenging the said orders a revision was preferred under section 50 of MP Land Revenue Code before the Additional District Magistrate. 13. It was further argued that the said revision came to be allowed vide order dated 15.9.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer. It was further argued that after remand learned Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 28.3.2022 set aside the order of Tehsildar dated 15.7.2019. It was further argued that challenging the said order a second appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner which was marked as appeal No.59/2022-23 and vide order dated 21.4.2022 the application for stay was allowed and the effect and operation of the orders passed by the Courts below were stayed till the next date of hearing and thereafter, notices were issued to the respondents and on the very next date of hearing i.e. 14.7.2022 when the matter was called out without there being any record which was called on earlier date, the application for stay was rejected, which is per se illegal. 14. It was submitted that the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there was no application for vacating the stay which was granted by the same authority on 21.4.2022 even on behalf of respondents since they were not even served. Thus, the impugned orders suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be set aside. 15. 14. It was submitted that the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there was no application for vacating the stay which was granted by the same authority on 21.4.2022 even on behalf of respondents since they were not even served. Thus, the impugned orders suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be set aside. 15. Per contra, Amit Lahoti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that the present petition has been directed against an interlocutory order passed by Learned Commissioner while rejecting the application for stay, which is a discretion of the learned second appellate authority and cannot be interfered with, thus, he prayed that petition being devoid of any substance be dismissed. 16. Similar arguments were raised by Shri Avdesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Shri Sahil Chhabra, learned counsel for respondent No.11. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 18. Admittedly, the appeal which was preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 28.3.2022 passed by Sub Divisional Officer is under challenge before the Additional Commissioner and on the very first dated i.e. 21.4.2022 the application for stay was allowed and till the next date of hearing the effect and operation of the order of Courts below were stayed and notices were issued to the respondents therein and records of the Courts below were called. On 26.4.2022 an application under section 32 of MPLRC for making certain amendments was moved on behalf of present petitioners which was allowed and the matter was listed for issuance of notice to the respondents and calling of the record. 19. On 14.7.2007, which was the date fixed by the additional commissioner for further hearing without there being any record of the Courts below or presence on behalf of respondents or any application for vacating earlier stay order, without any reason, it appears that learned Additional Commissioner has rejected the application for stay instead of extending it, which does not seems to be proper. 20. It is a settled principle of law that while passing an order either on an application or finally deciding the matter the Courts which includes the quasi judicial authorities should pass a speaking and reasoned order. 20. It is a settled principle of law that while passing an order either on an application or finally deciding the matter the Courts which includes the quasi judicial authorities should pass a speaking and reasoned order. Reasoning is the soul of the order and where the soul itself is missing, the order cannot have any life accordingly, the order dated 14.7.2022 is hereby quashed. The earlier order dated 21.4.2022 is hereby restored. 21. Learned Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of certified copy of this order. 22. Till the decision of the appeal the order dated 21.4.2022 shall remain in operation. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands allowed and disposed of.