JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: “(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to setting-aside the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the respondent no. 1 and further be pleased to directed the parties to maintain the status-quo in the land in question till the decision of the Revenue Revision No. 11 of 2013-14, Chander Prakash Arya Vs. Padma Datt and others, pending in the court of respondent no. 1.” 2. Petitioner instituted a Revenue Suit No. 22/49 of 2012-2013 under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for recording his name in the property in dispute. Along with that suit, the petitioner also moved an application seeking exemption under Section 80(2) of C.P.C. on the ground that defendant no. 23 (respondent no. 3 herein), in collusion with some property dealer, forcefully tried to evict the petitioner from the land in dispute. The Assistant Collector, Nainital allowed the said exemption application filed by the petitioner and the matter was listed for 05.08.2013. On 05.08.2013, the Assistant Collector, Nainital granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner and directed the defendant no. 23 (respondent no. 3 herein) not to alienate the property in dispute and to maintain status-quo. 3. Against the said order, the defendant no.23 (respondent no. 3 herein) filed a Stay Vacation Application before the Assistant Collector, Nainital. On 07.10.2013, the Assistant Collector, Nainital, after considering the application of the respondent no. 3, returned the plaint on the ground that compliance of Section 80 C.P.C. was not done by the petitioner. 4. Against the order dated 07.10.2013, petitioner preferred a revenue revision before the Commissioner, Kumaon, Nainital, in which the Commissioner, Kumaon passed a status-quo order on 28.10.2013 and fixed 23.12.2013 for hearing of the matter. After that, the matter was not heard for a long period and on 23.05.2016, the Commissioner Kumaon set-aside his earlier order dated 28.10.2013. Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. After that, the matter was not heard for a long period and on 23.05.2016, the Commissioner Kumaon set-aside his earlier order dated 28.10.2013. Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the exemption application was allowed by the Assistant Collector, he should not have passed the order asking the petitioner to comply the provision of Section 80 of C.P.C. He further submits that the Commissioner, Kumaon passed the status quo order in the year 2013 and he did not hear the case on merit and on 23.05.2016, he vacated his interim order dated 28.10.2013. I also think that the Commissioner should have decided the revision itself and should not have kept the matter pending for a long time, as the issue involved in the revision is very small. Instead of recalling his earlier order, he should have decided the revision itself. The approach of the Commissioner is not appreciated by this Court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not issuing notice to the private respondent, as issuance of notice to the private respondent will delay the proceedings. I am disposing of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 7. The issue before the Commissioner, Kumaon is whether the Assistant Collector, Nainital was justified in asking the petitioner to comply the provision of Section 80 of C.P.C., especially when the exemption application moved by the petitioner was allowed. This question can be decided by the Commissioner, Kumaon at the earliest. As far as vacation of the interim order is concerned, I am not inclined to pass any interim order in the writ petition in favour of the petitioner, as other side has not been noticed, but, in the interest of justice, I direct the Commissioner, Kumoan to decide the revision filed by the petitioner at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months’ from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 8. With the observation made above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. 9. It will be open to the petitioner to move any application for interim relief before the Commissioner, Kumaon during the pendency of revision, in case, need arises.