JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the Judgement of the revisional court dated 12-1-1988, contained in Annexure III attached to the writ petition, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that his chak no. 67 has been disturbed without appreciating the difficulties of the petitioner. The aforesaid Judgement is not a balanced Judgement and it does not deal with the claim of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties Abdul Shakoor has tried to support the impugned Judgement and according to him sufficient reason has been assigned in the impugned Judgement while accepting the claim of the contesting opposite party Abdul Shakoor. Therefore, the impugned Judgement should not be interfered with. 4. Second submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party is that other co-tenure holders who were parties to the revision petition before the revisional court were not impleaded in the present writ petition therefore, the impugned Judgement should not be interfered with otherwise the contesting opposite party Abdul Shakoor shall suffer irreparable injury which cannot be cured. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and perusing the Judgement attached with the writ petition, I find that the impugned Judgement of the revisional court is cryptic and does not deal with the claim of the present petitioner. To my mind the impugned Judgement is not a balanced Judgement as it has failed to deal with the claim of the petitioner while affecting his chak. True, that other co-tenure holders have not been impleaded in the present writ petition, but a perusal of the chart attached with writ petition indicates that the revisional court has only disturbed the chak of the petitioner at the instance of Abdul Shakoor, therefore, if the impugned Judgement is quashed, the revision will be finally disposed of by the revisional court after hearing all the parties concerned and dealing with their claims strictly in accordance with law. The revisional court will not indulge into any technicality and grant the relief to the applicant in revision as is contemplated by the provisions of law. 6. The revisional court will not indulge into any technicality and grant the relief to the applicant in revision as is contemplated by the provisions of law. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned Judgement of the revisional court dated 12-1-1988 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to decide the revision petition filed by Abdul Shakoor afresh strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 7. With regard to possession the revisional court will maintain status quo prevailing today and will disturb the possession of the parties concerned after finally deciding the revision petition hereafter. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 8. Copy of this order may be given to the parties on receipt of usual charges within 24 hours.