KRISHNA MURARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) SUIT was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. During pendency of the proceedings, an or­der dated 1.12.2008 was passed giving last opportunity to the defendant-respondent to adduce evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff-petitioners' witness. However, the said opportunity was not availed. The de­fendant-respondent again moved an appli­cation seeking further opportunity to adduce evidence and to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. Trial Court vide order dated 25.1.2010 rejected the same. The defendant-respondent went up in revision. Revisional Court, though, found that number of oppor­tunities have been given to the defendant-respondent and he was adopting dilatory tactics, still allowed the revision and remanded the case back with direction that one last opportunity be given to the defendant for leading his evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff's witness and suit may be decided within four months. Since the revision was allowed at the admission stage itself, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an appli­cation to recall the said order on the ground that it was passed exparte. Vide order dated 18.8.2010, Board of Revenue dismissed the application. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that defendant-respondent No. 5 has been misusing the process of law and atleast on more than three occasions, suit was directed to pro­ceed exparte but on an application filed by him, it was recalled and on account of dilatory tactics being adopted the suit filed in 1998 is still pending.
(3.) I have considered the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.;