Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr.M.E. Khan and perused the records.

2. Since the writ petition involves purely legal questions of law which can be considered without issuing notice to private respondents and without calling for any counter-affidavit, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage with the consent of parties counsel.

3. The questions which has cropped up in this writ petition are (i) whether in the proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the concerning Court is competent to grant temporary injunction/stay and; (ii) whether the order refusing or granting temporary injunction is appellable or revisable.

4. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.8.2015, passed by opposite party No. 2/Sub-Divisional Officer, Palia Kalan, Lakhimpur Kheri as well as order dated 26.8.2015 whereby in the suit filed under Section 176 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by petitioners the opposite party No. 1 has come to conclusion that there is no provision for grant of stay in the proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The temporary injunction order dated 9.2.2015 was therefore vacated. The revision preferred against the said order under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the petitioners has been dismissed as being not maintainable.

5. The facts of the case in brevity are that the land in dispute bearing Gata No. 176 (Mi)/0.109, 184 (M.)/6.272, 197 (M.)/0.012, 174/0.348, 246/0.518 and 247/0.077 hectare situated at Village Murur Khaida, Pargana & Tehsil Palia Kalan, District Lakhimpur Kheri were recorded in the name of Nahar son of Hari Singh as tenure holder. After the death of original tenure holder the land in question was jointly recorded in the name of petitioners alongwith opposite parties No. 3 to 15 being legal heirs of original tenure holder. As per petitioners opposite parties had started interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners, as such, petitioners had filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which is registered as Suit No. 375 (Darshan Singh and others v. Malkeet Singh and others). The petitioners in the said suit had filed an application dated 7.2.2015 for grant of stay. The said application was allowed vide order dated 9.2.2015 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo till further orders in respect to the land in dispute. The opposite parties No. 7 to 11 had filed an application dated 13.7.2015 for vacation of stay order. On the said application the opposite party No. 2 vide impugned order dated 10.8.2015 has vacated stay order dated 9.2.2015. The petitioners feeling aggrieved had filed revision under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act which has been dismissed holding that the revision since has been filed against an interlocutory order, as such is not maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that opposite party No. 2 without properly considering the submissions made by the petitioners had vacated the stay order dated 9.2.2015. It is wrong to say that in the proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the concerning Court does not posses the power of granting stay.

7. Submission is that under Section 341 of of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure has been made, as such, once a suit is filed the concerning Court is fully empowered to grant ad-interim injunction/stay.

8. It is further submitted that since there is no specific provision of appeal in such proceedings, as such, in view of Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act an order passed in the proceedings where no appeal lies or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred the revision is maintainable.

9. Mr. M.E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that under Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act it has been specifically provided that provisions of Indian Court Feel