- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision petition against the order, dated 16-7-1994, passed by the learned Additonal Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi on an application for stay filed in revision No. 161 of 1994, arising out of the order, dated 29-6-1994 passed by the learned trial Court, ordering the parties concerned to proceedings under Rule 115-P of the UPZA & LR Rules, to maintain status quo till the disposal of the same.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that in proceeding under Rule 115-P of the Rules, initiated on the application of the revisionist, the learned trial Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo against which the opposite party went up in the revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has stayed the order dated 29-6-1994, passed by the learned trial Court by his impugned order and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record on file. None responded for the opposite party despite due notice and repeated calls at the time of hearing and therefore, this Court was left with no option except to proceed ex-parte. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the proceedings in question under Rule 115-P of the Rules were finally disposed of by the learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 30-9-1994 and since all the interim orders, passed by it have merged into the same, the revision petitions before the learned Additional Commissioner as well as before the Board have now become Infructuous and therefore, I need not enter into the merits of the instant revision petition. In view of the above, this revision petition, being infructuous, is hereby, dismissed as such. Let records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned. Revision dismissed. .;