B.K. Tandon.J. - (1.) This is a revision filed by Munna against the order dated 27-1-1977 of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division in appeal no. 157 arising out of the order dated 30-12-1976 passed by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Gonda on an application moved by the revisionist under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in a case under Section 229B/209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(2.) The facts relevant to the present revision are as follows: Abdul Hamid and others, plaintiff-opposite parties brought the suit under sections 229B/209 and while it was pending an application for temporary injunction had been moved on 30-9-75 by Munna, revisionist. Parties were heard and on 15-10-1975 it appears an order was passed that the parties shall maintain possession according to entries. It further appears that on an appeal preferred against this order the matter was remanded. After remand, the trial court on 30-10-76 passed an order on the revisionist's application that the plaintiffs should not interfere with the possession of defendant no. 5. Against this order, Abdul Hamid and others, plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division. In appeal an application was moved on behalf of plaintiff appellants (opposite parties) praying for staying the operation of the order of the trial court dated 30-12-1976. On this application the Additional Commissioner on 27-l-1977 passed the following order: "Heard the learned counsels for the parties and send the file including application for stay and objection. The operation of the order of learned lower court dated 30-12-1976 is stayed." Aggrieved by the above order, Munna defendant no. 5 filed this revision. The revisionist had also made an application along with this revision praying that the operation of the order dated 27-1-1977 passed by the Additional Commissioner be stayed meanwhile. The revision was admitted on 3-2-1977 and also stay as prayed was granted.
(3.) The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 gave an application dated 23-1-1978 stating that no revision lies against an interlocutory order of stay passed by the lower appellate court and, therefore, the stay order passed by the Board in the revision may be vacated. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the opposite party (revisionist) on the point whether the stay granted by the Board should be vacated or not.;