JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1,2 and 4 and Mr. S.M. Shukla, Advocate representing the respondent No. 5 and Mr. Ram Kishun Misra, Advocate representing the respondent No. 3. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. As such, writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage under the Rules of the Court. 3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 20.3.2017, passed by the respondent No. 2 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector (First Class), Ghaziabad in Case No. T-20161128014067 (Narottam Vs. Stte of U.P. & Others) under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, whereby, the parties have been restrained from alienating the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which has been dismissed vide order dated 22.5.2017, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut in Revision No. 17/2016-17 9 (Avanish & Others Vs. Narottam Singh & Others) filed under Section 2010 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in challenge to the order dated 20.3.2017, submitted that the respondent No. 2 has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order dated 20.3.2017, inasmuch as, no finding regarding prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss has been recorded in the impugned order. With regard to the order dated 22.5.2017, it was submitted that the revisional Court erred in law in dismissing the revision as not maintainable. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by reason of the provision contained in Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, the scope of the revision is very large and the order dated 20.3.2017, passed by the respondent No. 2, was clearly amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision was maintainable and therefore, the order passed by the revisional court, is also liable to the set aside by this Court. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the revision was maintainable and therefore, the order passed by the revisional court, is also liable to the set aside by this Court. Apart from raising aforesaid legal pleas, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not desirous of executing any sale deed regarding the land in dispute, nor the petitioner has executed any sale deed regarding the land in dispute. As such, the basis for passing the impugned order dated 20.3.2017, is non existing. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. Ram Kishun Misra has supported the impugned order. It was vehemently contended by him that the order dated 20.3.2017, passed by the respondent No. 2 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector (First Class) Ghaziabad, is an equitable order, and no injury can be said to be caused to any party with the passing of the aforesaid order. 9. Attention of the Court was also drawn to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the application, copy of which has been appended as Annexure- CA 1 to the counter affidavit, in support of the plea, that in spite of the grant of a limited interim order, sale deed has been executed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, has strenuously argued that this statement of fact, on behalf of the petitioner, that the sale deed has been executed is non existent, as no copy of the sale deed has been brought on the record. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. 12. The law on the subject stands crystallized by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Vs. Baldev Dass, reported in AIR 2005 SC 104 . Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment apt for the controversy in hand is reproduced herein below:- "Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and untill a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings." 13. In light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, the order dated 20.3.2017, passed by the respondent No. 2, cannot be said to be illegal, particularly, when no such circumstance has been pleaded in the writ petition demonstrating the loss that shall be suffered by the petitioner. 14. In view of the aforesaid position, no useful purpose would be served to remand the matter before the revisional court for decision, afresh. 15. Consequently, it is directed that the interim order granted by the trial court on 20.3.2017, shall continue till the pendency of the suit. The respondent No. 2 shall proceed to decide the suit pending before him with all expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment, and shall positively decide the same within a period of one year from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.