JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Upendra Singh learned Standing counsel for the State and Sri Virendra Shukla learned counsel for the private respondent no.3. 2. In pursuance of the order passed by the Court dated 13.08.2024 this matter has been placed today and the then Tehsildar Ms. Vaishali Ahlawat is present in Court along with the record pertaining to the case under Section 34 of the Revenue Code, 2006 (Shubham Singh vs. Suryabhan Singh @ Vishwavijay Singh). 3. In order to put the matter in a perspective it will be necessary to notice certain facts. The petitioner has filed the instant petition assailing the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya whereby it rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the order impugned is merely interlocutory in nature and in any case, since the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to canvas its case before the Tehsildar. Hence, the revision was declined. 4. The petitioner has specifically stated that the order impugned is bad in eyes of law in as much as it is without due notice and against the settled legal principles of law. It is case of the petitioner that the proceedings were pending before the Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil Sirauli, Gauspur Barabanki and on 20.03.2024 the parties had appeared before the court concerned. On the said date, an application is said to have been moved by Shubham Singh who was the plaintiff before the Court seeking an interim protection. On the said date, on the said application it was noticed that the matter be put up with file fixing 27.03.2024. It is also the case of the petitioner that once the matter was listed on 27.03.2024 there was no occasion for the Presiding Officer to have passed the order dated 20.03.2024 itself and grant interim relief which is behind the back of the petitioner and per se in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. It is the aforesaid factual background that the petitioner had approached this Court assailing the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Tehsildar as well as the order passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the revision. 6. 5. It is the aforesaid factual background that the petitioner had approached this Court assailing the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Tehsildar as well as the order passed by the Revisional Court rejecting the revision. 6. This Court had called for the record and from the perusal thereof it appears that while proceedings were pending before the Tehsildar the present petitioner had moved an application for transfer before the S.D.M. The said application for transfer came to be rejected by means of the order dated 18.03.2024 and it was directed that both the parties shall be present before the court of Tehsildar on 20.03.2024. As the order depicts that on 20.03.2024 the case was called out, both the parties were present and it states that both the parties had moved their separate applications seeking interim protection. The order further goes on to state that the applications have been disposed of and the order shall be placed on record separately fixing 27.03.2024 as a next date. It is thereafter a second order in the handwriting of the Presiding Officer was passed on 20.03.2024 itself in terms whereof, as an interim measure as sought by the private respondent no.3 herein, the earlier order dated 07.11.2023 was stayed. This second order came to be assailed on the ground that once the order had been passed there was no occasion for the officer to have pass another order on the very same day. 7. From perusal of the original record, it indicates that only one application is available on record, dated 20.03.2024 which was moved by Shubham Singh before the court concerned and on the said application on the margin, it is noted by the officer put up with file. 8. For clarity the application, the order thereof as well as the order dated 20.03.2024 passed at the first instance followed by the hand written interim order dated 20.03.2024 are being scanned and reproduced hereinafter for ready reference. 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid it would indicate that there were no two applications filed by the respective parties. There is no explanation by the officer concerned, who is present in Court namely Ms. 9. From the perusal of the aforesaid it would indicate that there were no two applications filed by the respective parties. There is no explanation by the officer concerned, who is present in Court namely Ms. Vaishali Ahlawat, that once the matter was fixed before the court concerned in terms of the order passed by the S.D.M and the Court in its order had recorded that two separate applications by the respective parties have been moved where was the occasion to pass any order on the application itself stating to be kept on file, if the case was already listed before it as the said application as a matter of course should have been with the file. 10. Such an order to keep on file is generally passed when the application is moved on the day when the matter is not fixed. Thus the averments made by the officer that the matter was listed and the earlier order dated 20.03.2024 was passed does not corroborate appropriately. 11. Moreover, if the order dated 20.03.2024 is seen, it would also indicate that the matter was fixed for 27.03.2024 and neither on the said order nor on the application there is any averment to indicate that the counsel for the respective parties were heard on the application. There is nothing on record to indicate that what was the material upon which the Court formed its subjective satisfaction. Since, as per the record, only one application was moved and the other party had been seeking time so there was no question of hearing of parties on merits of the said application. This clearly indicates that the orders have been passed without application of judicial mind. 12. It has also been pointed and reflected from the record that earlier the plaintiff Shubham Singh had already moved an application for interim relief on 25.11.2023 and the application moved on 20.03.2024 was the second application upon which the order has been passed. 13. Apparently, the order is exparte behind the back of the petitioner and granting the interim order in the manner in which the proceedings have been taken forward cannot be sustained. 13. Apparently, the order is exparte behind the back of the petitioner and granting the interim order in the manner in which the proceedings have been taken forward cannot be sustained. The State has formulated the U.P. Revenue Court Manual wherein there are detailed instructions and regulations which are for the benefit of the Presiding Officers to streamline the proceedings and also carry them in a manner which inspires confidence rather than to hold the proceedings which become controversial and may draw fingers at fair, transparent and just functioning of the Courts. 14. In this context Regulation 489 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual would be gainful to be perused which is reproduced hereinafter for ready reference: 489. Ad interim ex parte order-(1) The court may, on the application of any party to a suit, appeal, revision, review or other proceeding and on such terms as it thinks fit, make an order for preservation of any land which is the subject matter of the suit, appeal, revision, review or other proceeding. (2) The court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of making the order for preservation would be defeated by the delay, before making the order, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party: Provided that where it is proposed to make an order without giving notice of the application to the opposite party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of making the order would be defeated by delay, and require the applicant- (a) to deliver to the opposite party or to send to him by registered post/speed post immediately after the order has been made, a copy of the application for the order together with- (i) a copy of the affidavit filed In support of the application; (ii) a copy of the plaint, memo of appeal, memo of revision or other application on which the proceeding has been initiated; and (iii) copies of documents on which the applicant relies; and (b) to file, on the date on which the order is made or on the working day immediately following that day, an affidavit stating that the copies aforesaid have been so delivered or sent. (3) If the condition mentioned in clause (b) of sub-para (2) of this para is complied with, the interlocutory order shall be vacated automatically. (3) If the condition mentioned in clause (b) of sub-para (2) of this para is complied with, the interlocutory order shall be vacated automatically. not (4) Where an order has been made under this para without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of application within thirty days from the date on which the order was made and where it is unable so to do it shall record its reasons for such inability. 15. Apparently the said order impugned, has been passed which does not meet the test of abiding with the principles of natural justice. The said order is per se bad. The revisional court also did not appreciate the contention which was raised by the petitioner and the Revisional Court treated the matter to be merely an interlocutory order and it dismissed the revision, which was not justified. 16. It will not be out of place to mention here that the basic hierarchy of Court which is provided is only to ensure proper, fair and equitable proceedings which inspire confidence. The moment this was brought to the notice of the revisional court and the manner in which the Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is couched which confers wide powers on the revisional authority to not only look into an order on its merit but it also has the power to look into the propriety of the order or proceedings. In case, if the court of first instance is functioning in a manner which does not inspire confidence, it was the bounden duty of the revisional court to have noticed the same and should have rectified it rather than to shun its responsibility treating it to be an interlocutory order. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 20.3.2024 can not be sustained which is accordingly set aside. 18. Since the order dated 20.3.2024 has been set aside consequently the order of the revisional court shall also stand set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of Tehsildar concerned on 27.08.2024 and the court concerned shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties shall proceed to decide the application afresh. 19. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of Tehsildar concerned on 27.08.2024 and the court concerned shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties shall proceed to decide the application afresh. 19. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the contention of the parties on merits but the order has been set aside on account of ill propriety in passing the said order. 20. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The original record has been handed over to Sri Upendra Singh learned Standing counsel.