- (1.) RAM Janam Singh, J. This revision has been preferred by Smt. Leelawati against the order dated 16-8-95 passed by learned Additional Commis sioner, Meerut Division, Meerut.
(2.) ON the application of Smt. Leelawati, the learned trial Court re opened the proceeding under Section 229-D of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and fixed 13-7-95 for filing objection and final dis posal of the said application. Aggrieved by this ex-pane order Prem Chand preferred appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner which was allowed by set ting aside the order dated 28-6-95 and remanded the case back to the trial Court for disposal on merit. Against this present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist. The learned Counsel for the opposite-party is absent. Facts and evidence are on record hence the revision is disposed of on merit. Since the learned Additional Commis sioner had remanded back the case to the trial Court for disposal according to lawon merit and granted stay order to maintain status quo on the spot which does not give any right to any party. Though the learned trial Court was justified in recalling the order dated 2-6-95 and fixing 13-7-95 for filing objection and deciding the application under Section 229-D of the Act, it is always advisable and in the interest of justice that if any stay order is passed it cannot he passed without earing both the parties, but the day the appeal or revision is filed the other party is not present and seeing the urgency of the matter the stay applica tion is decided on the same day. But if other party appears and moves an application for setting aside the stay order granted in favour of the revisionist or appellant then the same application should he heard on merit and appropriate order should be passed. Once the discretion is exercised by the Court then the superior Court legally should not interfere in such cases. The application filed under Section 229-D of the Ac! is still pending before the trial Court and it is open for both the parties to persue the matter and get the order passed by the Court concerned.
(3.) I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional Commis sioner is not based on the fact and the circumstances in which the trial Court passed its order dated 28-6-1995. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the order passed by learned Addi tional Commissioner dated 16-8-95 and remand the matter hack to the trial Court to decide the application under Section 229-D of the Act pending in the Court concerned.;