JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The only question involved in this case is that on 4.5.90, the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the application of the petitioner for adjournment and fixed the case for disposal of the revision on 11.1.90. A transfer application was preferred ' against the said order which was dismissed by the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of his order dated 4.5.90. 2. The learned counsel, prays that by dismissing the application for transfer the District Magistrate/District Deputy Director has committed manifest error, hence the proceedings of the case be stayed. Staying the proceedings of the case unnecessarily cause prejudice to the parties concerned and the proceedings pending cannot be unnecessarily be prolonged. Hence in the interest of justice it is necessary that the writ petition itself be disposed of finally. 3. As the question in a trivial one hence there is no need of issuing notice to the opposite parties and the writ petition can be disposed of finally without any counter-affidavit. 4. As the justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done, without altering into the merit of the submission made by the petitioner in connection with transfers it is necessary that the matter be decided by any other Deputy Director of Consolidation. The District-Magistrate/District Deputy Director Consolidation is directed to transfer the said case to any other officer and fix a date directing the parties to appear before the officer concerned who after hearing them will dispose of the matter. This order has been passed on the expressed undertaking of the petitioner that in case the case is transferred to any other officer he will not seek adjournment. In case after transfer of the case the petitioner seek adjournment, transferring officer shall be free to dispose of the revision itself. 5. With the above observations the writ petition stand disposed of finally.