JUDGMENT Shri Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a revision arising out of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra Sri S. P. Singh Solanki on 5-9-85 in revision No. 388 of 1984-85 of district Agra, preferred against the Judgement and order of the S.D.O. Agra, passed on 16-2-85 in suit no. 19 of 84-85 Abdul Rasheed and others v. Naseem and others under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The brief facts of the matter in dispute are that during the trial of suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act brought by opposite - party Abdul Rasheed Khan seeking declaration of his exclusive tenancy rights which was opposed by the revisionist on the ground of joint tenancy, an application was moved by the plaintiff - opposite party in the trial court on 28-8- 84 with the request to grant order of injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating or altering the nature of the land in dispute and also from transferring the rights and title in the land in question in favour of any other person during - the pendency of the trial of the suit because of the apprehension that building construction might be raised over the land in dispute by the other party or by the third party in whose favour the land in question was to be transferred. The trial court under his order dated 16-2-85 granted the injunction sought restraining the parties from altering the nature of the land and from transferring it in favour of any third party. The defendants feeling aggrieved went before the Commissioner in revision No. 388 of 84-85 Naseem and others v. Abdul Rasheed and others of district Agra in Disposal of which the Additional Commissioner has passed the impugned order on 5-9-85 dismissing the revision holding it to be not maintainable being preferred against an interlocutory order. Now feeling aggrieved the defendants have come to this court in second revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. None appeared for the opposite-party. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended during course of his arguments that the injunction application was allowed and injunction was granted by the learned trial court without affording any opportunity to the revisionist of being heard in the matter. None appeared for the opposite-party. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended during course of his arguments that the injunction application was allowed and injunction was granted by the learned trial court without affording any opportunity to the revisionist of being heard in the matter. The learned counsel referring to 1957 R.D. page 411 has gone ahead to argue that the provisions of the Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are applicable to the orders passed whether on merits of the case or to interlocutory orders. 5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that opposite - party has sought declaration of his sole bhumidhari rights although the village records an extract of which is available in the file prima facie shows that plaintiff and defendants are recorded as contents and it is a matter of evidence to prove whether the plaintiff is exclusive tenant of the land or not. Now in such circumstances when the plaintiff is claiming sole tenancy rights over the disputed land the other persons recorded as contents in village records cannot be allowed to alter the nature of land or to transfer it in favour of any third party because in that case further complications and multiplicity of litigation are likely to come into existence resulting in unnecessary inconvenience with respect to money matters and other matters as well as in prolonging the litigation also. 6. In my opinion therefore, the -order granting injunction with the directions to maintain status quo with regard to the subject matter of the dispute is totally justified and the learned lower court -has also not committed any irregularity of jurisdiction or any error apparent on the face of record relating to illegality etc. 7. In view of the observations made above, this revision having no force is dismissed.