IMPORTANT POINT
The appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, lies against the order of status-quo, rendering the revision filed under Section 210 not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Dharm Raj Mishra and Shri Ratnesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by respondent No.1-Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, District-Gonda in the Revision instituted under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006"), registered as Case No.1201 of 2023, (Rahul Agrawal vs. Ritesh Agrawal).

3. The brief facts are to the effect that in a Case No. 5244 of 2023 (Ritesh Kumar vs. Rahul Agrawal & Others), Computerized Case No. 20230815050244, instituted under Section 116 of the Code of 2006, the revenue court of first instance, namely, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Payagpur, District-Bahraich (in short "S.D.M.") passed the order dated 04.08.2023, whereby the authority concerned directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The order dated 04.08.2023 being relevant on reproduction reads as under:-

4. Being dissatisfied/aggrieved by the order of status-quo dated 04.08.2023 passed by the S.D.M., the revision was preferred and the revisional authority namely, respondent No.1 after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, allowed the revision and interfered in the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by S.D.M. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 reads as under:-

5. The main ground which has been taken for interfering in the order dated 04.08.2023 is based upon the provisions indicated in the Code of 2006 i.e. Section 207 and Section 209 of the Code of 2006.

6. Impeaching the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by respondent No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Section 207 particularly Sub-Section 2 (b) and (c), the appeal was maintainable against the order dated 04.08.2023 whereby the parties were directed to maintain 'status-quo', and the revision under Section 210 of the Code of 2006 was not maintainable and being so in entertaining and allowing the revision, the respondent No.1 committed material illegality.

7. In continuation, he also stated that an order directing the parties to maintain 'status-quo' would fall under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and as such in view of Section 207, which indicates that an appeal shall lie against an order of the nature specified under Order 43 Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the said Code namely Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C.'), the appeal was maintainable and not the revision. In this regard, a reference has been made to the Order 43 of C.P.C.

8. He further submitted that the expression 'Stay' under Sub-Section 209(d) is relevant. There is a difference between expression 'Injunction' and 'Stay'. As per settled principle of law, an 'Injunction' order would relate to party or parties, as the case may be, to the case/suit and 'Stay' order relates to the Court/Authority concerned. Accordingly, Section 209 would not be available to the side opposite to say that revision was maintainable.

9. Per contra, Shri D.R. Mishra, based upon Section 209 (d) and 209 (h) submitted that the interim order i.e. order dated 04.08.2023 was an ex-parte order, as such, in view of the Sub-Section (h) read with Sub-Section (d) of Section 209, the revision was maintainable. As such, no interference in the matter is required. Prayer is to dismissed the petition.

10. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. For the purposes of disposal of the present petition, this Court finds it appropriate to reproduce Section 207, Section 209 as also Section 210 of the Code of 2006.

12. Section 207 of the Code of 2006 reads as under:-

"First appeal.-(1) Any party aggrieved by a final order or decree passed in any suit, application or proceeding specified in Column 2 of the Third Schedule, may prefer a first appeal to the Court or officer specified against it in Column 5, where such orde