ANIL SWARUP, j. - (1.) APPLICATION dated 8-4-2005 was considered today. This application was filed against the order dated 27-12-2004 passed by the Addl. Commissioner staying the order of SDM on 2-11-2004.
(2.) A perusal of the file reveals that there has been a comedy of errors in this case. The SDMs order could not have been considered by the Addl. Commissioner as he had no jurisdiction and Addl. Commissioners order dated 27-12-2004 could not be challenged on a revision as the order of Addl. Commissioner was an interlocutory order. It would not be appropriate for this Court to pass a judgment on an order which was in itself bad in law as the said Court did not have a jurisdiction. The revisionist should move an application in the Court of Addl. Commissioner to review the decision. As far as the application filed on this Court is concerned, it is dismissed in account of if being a revision against an interlocutory order and the stay granted against that order is also vacated. The applicant can, as indicated earlier, move an application before the Additional Commissioner. Revision dismissed.;