Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82988 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15843 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kailash And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hausihla Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the Revision No. 1917 of 2024(Computerised No. C 202405000001917 (Kailash Vs Collector, Gorakhpur and others) filed by the petitioners under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated. ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioners from arazi no. 659 area 0.1300 hectare situated in Village Bhadar Khas, Badhyapar, Tappa Bhadar, Pargana Dhuriapar, Tehsil Khajni, District Gorakhpur in pursuant to order dated 07/05/2025 and 11/09/2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively till the disposal of Revision No. 1917 of 2024 (Computerised No. C 202405000001917 (Kailash Vs Collector, Gorakhpur and others) filed under Section 210 of U.P.Revenue Code, 2006." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a revision was file by the petitioners against the order dated 11.09.2024 before the Commissioner. The said revision has been admitted but the application for interim relief has been rejected by the order impugned dated 07.05.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in case of Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited reported in 1982 (3) SCC page No. 484 and contended hat once the revision was admitted during the pendency of revision, the revisional court ought to have been maintained the status quo. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and it would be appropriate that a direction be issued to respondent no. 2 to decide the revision in a time frame as may be fixed by this Court. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned revision filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment. 6. It is further provided that till the disposal of the revision, the parties are directed to maintain status quo and the petitioners will cooperate in disposal of the revision and will not seek any undue adjournment to linger on the proceedings. 7. It is made clear that in case, an attempt is being made by the petitioners to linger on the proceedings of revision, the interim protection granted by this Court, shall automatically stands vacated. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad