C.L.VERMA, J. - (1.) THESE are three appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 19-7-89 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi. Ap­peal No. 2 had been filed against the order passed in Revision No. 182 of 89. Appeal No. 24 has been filed against the order passed in revision No. 181 of 89 Musafir v. Gaon Sabha. Appeal No. 25 of 89-90 has been filed against the order passed in revision No. 183 of 59, Awadhesh Singh and Anr v. Gaon Sabha.
(2.) AS common points of fact and law are involved in all the three appeals for the facility and convenience all the appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment. Appeal No. 2 will be considered as the leading case. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff/revisionist instituted a suit under Section 229 -B of the UPZA and LR Act for declaration of his rights. On 16-7-63 the suit was decreed. There after village went in consolidation operations and the Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 6-6-68 (Gaon Sabha v. Dhalloo and 12 others) passed in appeal Nos. 2536, 2537 and 2538 held that the property belonged to the plaintiffs and dis­missed the appeals filed by the Gaon Sabha. An application for restoration under Order IX, Rule 13 CPCwas moved on behalf of the State on 26-9-84 on the ground that theState had no knowledge of the decree and that the decree dated 16-7-63 be set aside. This ap­plication was rejected by the trial Court by i is order dated 2-5-89. It took note of the fact that during consolidation operations the Gaon Sabha and State had lost and that the present application was barred by time. Against this order an application under Section 151 CPC seeking recall of the order was filed and this was allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 6-7-89. Against this order revisions were filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Additional Commissioner observed that the order was interlocutory in nature and did not ca use any prejudice to the present revisionist and dismissed the revision. Against this order Awadhesh Singh and others filed the above appeals before this Court. By the order dated 4-12-89 the Board converted the revisions into appeals.
(3.) IT may be mentioned here that two other revisions against the order passed by learned Additional Commissioner were filed before the Board. While disposing of those revisions the learned Member men­tioned that the order passed in that revisions would also govern the present revisions. Against this order three applica­tions were moved under Section 152 CPC. The Board by their order dated 4-12-89 held that the order dated 2-11-89 shall not govern the cases Awadhesh Singh v. State, Musafir v. State and Jagat and others v. State. An application to recall this order was filed on 29-3-90. The order passed by Board was under Section 152 CPC. The mistake was accidental omission and had rightly been corrected by the order dated 4-12-89. The application dated 29-3-90did not lie and is here by rejected.;