Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 1136 (ALL)

Govind Prasad Nisad v. Commissioner Gorakhpur

1992-08-27

BHAIRO PRASAD

body1992
JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These two revisions are filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 22.2.1992. The learned Addl. Commissioner has passed that order in revision no. 148-A of 1992 and 842/194/A of 1990. The nature of that order is that the Additional Commissioner has admitted the revision and stayed the order of the S.D.O. Against this stay order these revisions has been filed which was admitted on 4.5.1992. Opposite Party appeared and pleaded that the stay order granted should be vacated because by granting the stay order in case has been decided. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that stay can be granted against the stay order against the order passed by sub-ordinate court. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that if the order of the stay passed by the first court the proceeding will remain pending and will not be decided because the order of the first appellate court regarding the admission and stay of the proceeding is stayed by this court, hence the first appellate court cannot do anything. This court only can at the most in the circumstances can decide whether the stay granted by the first appellate court is liable to set aside in that exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 5. This is cardinal principle of the nature justice when any revision or appeal is admitted the stay are granted. If that stay is challenged then that cardinal principle of the natural justice will be violated. Beside this court has power to pass the stay order. Therefore, the stay order granted by the Additional Commissioner is not beyond jurisdiction and nothing has also been shown to me that the order is materially illegal or defective in the exercise of the jurisdiction, therefore, I vacate the order and direct the first appellate court to proceed to decide the revision under Section 333-A of U.P. Act no.1 of 1951 in accordance with law. This order shall govern revisions no. 30+31 of 1991-92/Azamgarh.