JARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act, preferred against the orders, dated 1-5-2002, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, maintaining status quo, on the spot and directing the parties to argue on 6-5-2002, the next date fixed in the revision Petition No. 68 of 2001-02, pending before him. In para 2 of the revision, it has been averred that the aforesaid order, dated 1-5-2002 was not extended, fixing 9-5-2002 for disposal of the Revision Petition by the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the learned Additional Commissioner has exercised a jurisdiction, not vested in him, by law and has failed to exercise such jurisdiction, vested in him, by law, resulting in irreparable loss to the revisionist.

(2.) I have closely and carefully considered the submissions, made before me by the learned Counsel and have also scanned the papers, on file, which very clearly reveals, at the very outset, that no copy of such order is on the record, in support of the contention, made in para 2 of the memorandum of this revision petition. If the contention of the learned Counsel is taken to be correct, it was the judicial discretion of the learned Court, below, not to extend the aforesaid stay order and to expedite disposal of the revision petition, which has been exercised judicial, by the learned Court below, in the interest of speedy dispensation of justice, to the parties. Moreover, the order, dated 1-5-2002, passed by the learned Court, below, is interlocutory, in nature, against which no revision lies and therefore, this revision petition is not fit for admission and deserves for dismissal in limine outright.