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 Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital dated 28.1.1992. The learned Commissioner has passed that order rejecting the stay application in appeal No. 64 of 1991-92 arising out of a suit under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist at length. His contention is that if the final decree is prepared and confirmed his appeal will be in fructuous against the preliminary decree. The learned counsel also argued that the first appellate court atleast should have granted stay for the confirmation of the lots. On these points he relied 1987 A.W. page 724 and law point laid down by the Supreme Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur and others. These are the law points which has been laid down by the highest court of the country. These law points should have been also shown to the first appellate court before whom the proceeding is pending. The rejection of stay application is no bar for moving a fresh stay application. The revisionist may again move an application before the learned Commissioner and to show these law points for the consideration of the Commissioner again. No case has been decided by the first appellate court, therefore, this revision is summarily rejected.