JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 24.7.1992 passed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Office, Gorakhpur dated 24-10-91 in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist has been beard at length on the point of admission. In brief the facts of this case are that an ex-party decree was passed by the trial court. Restoration application was moved to set aside that decree. Application was also moved to stay the operation of the ex-party decree which was allowed ex-party against which the revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the stay order was passed without hearing the revisionist. The Additional Commissioner rejected the revision on the ground that the stay order is interlocutory order and no final proceeding or suit still has been decided hence he rejected the revision. Hence this revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on the ground that the order in dispute was passed without hearing the revisionist as revisionist was not present at that time in the restoration proceeding. The learned counsel also argued that the stay granted ex-parte is a proceeding decided, therefore, he argued that the revision should be admitted and the orders passed by both the courts below be stayed. 3. After considering all aspects it would have been better if the revisionist have gone to the trial court to file application if he was aggrieved from the stay order and he should have pressed for the vacation of the stay order. Because in this court the learned counsel has argued to admit and stay the proceedings ex-party without notice to the opposite parties. In this way if the order of the trial court is illegal on the ground that it was passed without issuing notice and hearing then stay order if granted here also will be on the same footing. In these circumstances of the case it necessary to issue notice to the opposite parties. Fix 15th October 1992. The revisionist should pairvi the service of notice.