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, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 10.6.1992 passed in revision NO. 141 of 1992 against the order of the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Bansdih, District Ballia dated 4.3.1992 in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that dispute was decided between the parties under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The restoration application was filed in which stay was granted on 3.2.1992 till the appearance of the opposite parties. When the opposite parties appeared again an application was given and a fresh order was passed on 4.3.1992, that order opposed and judgment passed in the suit shall remain stayed till the disposal of this application. The revision was filed against that order on the ground that it is a Co-tenancy of the parties, therefore, there should not have been passed stay order in the restoration application. Revision was filed against that order which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by his impugned order against which this revision has been filled in this court. 3. The only point the learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the property in dispute is a Co-tenancy, by passing stay order he will be thrown by the opposite parties from the possession of the disputed plot regarding his share. No stay order can be granted in such a way in respect of Co-tenancy land. 4. He also argued that the trial court has held in the last sentence of his order dated 4.3.1992 that there should be no interference in the possession of the applicants. The learned counsel argued that before deciding the restoration application and even the case on merit the learned trial court has assumed that the land in dispute was exclusively in possession of the applicant. 5. I agree with the leanrned counsel for the revisionist that this last sentence of the order dated 4.3.1992 appears to be passed illegally and needs to be reviewed and so interference under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is made out. Therefore, this revision is admitted and the orders of both the courts below dated 10.6.1992 and 4.3.1992 respectively shall remain stayed till further orders. Issue notice. Summon the records. Therefore, this revision is admitted and the orders of both the courts below dated 10.6.1992 and 4.3.1992 respectively shall remain stayed till further orders. Issue notice. Summon the records. Fix on 18.9.1992 for final hearing.