- (1.) GIRDHARI Lal, J. This revision has been filed by Sri Shyam Babu against Ram Swaroop and others against the order dated 16-3-94 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties on the point of admission. If has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that a lease for plantation was granted in his favour of plot in dispute Nos. 103 and 108. It has also been stated that if any matter is pending before the trial Court regarding these plots this matter should also be remanded back to the trial Court and both the mat ters should be decided simultaneously. The learned Counsel for the op posite-party has argued that plot Nos. 103 and 108 were granted in his favour and the matter was finally went up to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue remanded the case back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh. The trial Court has decided the case. When the lease in ques tion granted in favour of the opposite-party was already subjudice a second lease cannot be granted for the same land.
(3.) AFTER a perusal of the original records, it is clear that previously a lease was granted to Ram Swaroop and this mat ter is still pending in the trial Court hence the lease of the disputed plots in favour of the revisionist was not proper. The orders passed by the trial Court as well as Additional Commissioner needs no inter ference. Revision is not fit for admission. Hence it is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;