JUDGMENT
A.K. Singh, J.
1. Mr. M.C. Bhoot for the respondent Nos. 5, 7, 10, 13 and 17 is present on whose behalf notices are accepted by him on the last date of hearing on 29.11.1999. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent Nos. 5, 7, 10, 13 and 17, the court directed that the notices be issued to the remaining respondents as well.
2. The office has reported that the record of the lower court as well as the notices both are awaited. The learned Counsel for the appellant orally made a request that ex parte stay order should be granted without waiting for the receipt of the record and the notices as the circumstances want such a course.
3. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Once the court directed that the notices of the stay application be issued to the respondents, by necessary implication, the order implies that the question of stay order will hope to be considered and decided after the service of notices on the respondents. If any such circumstances have occurred which require the issue of ex parte stay order without waiting for the service on respondents then such circumstances must be brought on record by a proper application supported by an affidavit. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that an oral request made by him in this regard is sufficient. J regret that in all those cases where the court is requested to issue an ex parte order, without waiting for the service of notice ordered by the court on an early date of hearing, a mere oral request is not sufficient. The circumstances which require the ex parte grant of stay, must be duly established by filing an affidavit alongwith an application. A mere oral request is not sufficient. The learned Counsel for the appellant may, if he so desires, file an application duly supported by an affidavit and if he files such application the appeal shall be listed for necessary order.
4. The record and the notices be awaited for ten days from today.