JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Addl. Commissioner (Judl.), Moradabad dated 12.3.1991 passed in revision No. 1 of 1990-91 in which he dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the Addl. Sub-Divisional Officer, Moradabad dated 26.9.1990 passed is suit No. 58 of 1989-90. 2. Brief facts of the case are that this suit was filed by Gokal Singh under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in the trial Court. The suit was contested by Nathoo Singh and Kaluwa the present respondents. Issues were framed. Out of 14 issues one issue was whether the suit is barred by Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. This issue was decided as a preliminary issue by the trial court and held that the suit was not barred Section 80(2) of the C.P.C. Against that order was the revisionist filed revision in the court of Addl. Commissioner under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. That revision has ben dismissed. Then this revision was filed in the court under Section 333 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. In the court's file an application dated 29.8.1988 is on the record. The plaintiffs have requested the court to accord permission to file this suit before the expiry of the period notice as the opposite parties were bent upon to sell the disputed plot somebody else. Affidavit was also filed. No order was passed by the trial court on this application. This permission is accorded on the basis of Rs. 250/- as costs in order to resolve the controversy in the litigation. This revision is disposed of accordingly.