JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These two revisions has been filed under section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Commissioner, kumaun Division, Nainital dated 2.7.1990. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Govind Ram and others filed two suits under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the revisionist. The revisionist after notice appeared and pleaded that the plaintiff has no cause of action and he is bhumidhar of the suit. During the pendency of the suits application under section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was moved by the opposite parties Govind Ram and others in the trial court. The trial court passed order that the party should maintain status quo on the spot. Against that order the revisionist filed revision before the Commissioner under Section 333-A of U.P Act No. 1 of 1951. The learned Commissioner has dismissed those two revisions by its common order dated 2.7.1990. After that these two revisions have been filed in this court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Suits are under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. It means the possession is admitted only and title is denied. The order passed by the learned trial court to maintain status-quo is perfectly legal and justified in the circumstances of the case that are in these two suits. No any loss is occurred to the revisionist. The trial court has power to pass order under Section 229-D of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The order is within the jurisdiction and in the proper exercise of the jurisdiction. The order is also perfectly valid and legal. Therefore, there is no force in these two revisions. They are accordingly dismissed and the file of the trial court should be sent immediately for trial. This order shall govern Revision No. 20-21 of 1990-91/Nainital.