CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THERE is no merit in this revision petition. It is directed against the order of the appellate Authority constituted under the karnatuka Land Reforms Act for Dharwad district. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the landlord who had suffered an adverse order at the hands of the land Tribunal which granted occupancy rights in respect of 3 acres 5 guntas of land to the respondent- tenant in respect of western part of the land in Sy. No. 41 measuring totally 6 acres 11 guntas. The appeal pending before the Appellate Authority is in respect of that order granting occupancy rights. The respondent-tenant also filed an application seeking interim injunction against the appellant restraining him from interfering with his peaceful possession and cultivation of the land. Similarly, I. A. IV was filed by the appellant seeking stay of the land Tribunal's order. In proof of their respective possession, both parties produced evidence. The appellant produced record of rights extract whereas the respondent-tenant produced not only record of rights extract which showed his name in the cultivator's column to the extent he was in possession but also for having tendered levy to the Tahsildar the receipt book. The Appellate Authority declined to decide on evidence as to which one of the parties was in possession of the deputed land having in mind the fact that the respondent's evidence had already been recorded half before the Appellate authority. In that circumstance, they decided to dismiss both the applications, that is of the landlord as well as the tenant for interim relief on the understanding that the appeal itself will be disposed of expeditiously. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is preferred under section 121a. ( 3 ) MR. Patil argued that the Appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction despite the material placed before it. Brief as the order is, the fact remains that they had considered the rival contentions founded on the material placed by each of the parties and decided not to make any interim order but to dispose of the appeal itself. Patil argued that the Appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction despite the material placed before it. Brief as the order is, the fact remains that they had considered the rival contentions founded on the material placed by each of the parties and decided not to make any interim order but to dispose of the appeal itself. I am satisfied that such a view taken by the appellate Authority in declining to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it was essential to dispose of the appeal and if the appeal would be disposed of expeditiously, it cannot be said that the power conferred on the appellate Authority to make interim order is not exercised. Power give interim relief includes power to refuse the same. ( 4 ) FOR the above reasons, there is no merit in this revision and it is accordingly rejected. --- *** --- .