As per case facts, a partition application was filed, leading to approved naksha bey and sanad takseem. Subsequent appeals and revisions were initially dismissed, with the Financial Commissioner upholding the ... partition. The Petitioner then acquired a part of the land. Later, respondents filed a new revision petition, and a status-quo order was issued. Petitioner's impleadment application was dismissed, leading to a Writ Petition in High Court, which stayed the dismissal and status-quo. Despite this, the Financial Commissioner proceeded to set aside the partition proceedings and remanded the matter. The question arose whether the Financial Commissioner erred by deciding the revision while the Petitioner's impleadment and High Court's stay orders were pending. Finally, the High Court set aside the Financial Commissioner's orders, affirming the Petitioner's right to be impleaded, and remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing all parties, maintaining status quo.