S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard the coun sel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel representing the Caveator as well as Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 7.

2. Perused the record.

Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 dated 23. 2. 94 whereunder accepting the reference made by the Additional Com missioner dated 21. 4. 93 the revising authority had set aside the order of the trial court dated 30. 4. 92 granting ex pane, injunction against the defendants as well as the order passed by it dated 16. 11. 92 requiring the restoration of the status quo in respect of the land in dispute as reported by the Commissioner in his report dated 4. 5. 92 and directing for the re-construction of the dol and in case there had been any alteration in the possession in that event restoration of possession, the plaintiffs-petitioners have now approached this court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the order of the Board of Revenue, respon dent No. 1 as well as the referring order passed by the Additional Commissioner indicated herein before.

3. From a perusal of the record, it appears that plaintiffs- petitioners had filed a suit No. 35/1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document