C.L.VERMA, j. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by Shah Mohd. alias Jhuri and others against the order and judgment dated 18-5-96 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Gorakhpur Division in Revision No. 1046/238-A of 1992 and appeal No. 1072A of 1992 arising out of orders dated 22-5-92 and 3-6-92 passed by the SDO Sadar District Azamgarh in suit No. 67 under Section 176/178 UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that plaintiff respondent filed a suit under Section 176 UPZA and LR Act for partition of joint holding. The share of the parties has been finally settled by the Hon'ble Court the plaintiff's share being 3/4 and that of defendant being 1/4 and there is no dispute about it. The area of disputed plot being less than 3.125 acres proceedings under Section 178 UPZA and LR Act were adopted and sale of land through auction was made and on its basis the highest bidder Abdul Jabbar Khan deposited Rs. 19750.00 per his share. Feeling aggrieved Sheikh Khalil and others filed appeal No. 1072-A of 1992 and also a revision No. 1046/238-A. The Additional Commissioner Sri B.L. Agrawal by a joint and common judgment dated 18-5-96 dismissed the first appeal as well as the revision holding them to be not maintainable. Aggrieved by this order the present revision and appeal has been filed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the opposite parties raised preliminary objection against the maintainability of revision and argued that some minors have also been impleaded parties in the aforesaid revision who are admittedly minors. He urged that there in specific mandatory provision provided under Order XXXII, CPC for the impleadment of minors and appointment of their guardians and the some provision will also be applicable in appeals and revision both in view of Section 107 (2) of CPC and this mandatory provision of law has not been complied within filing the revision. He further argued that the revision involved no substantial question of law to be for mutated and decided by this Court and it has not been pointed out precisely in the memo of appeal and revision. He lastly argued that on other points the findings of the Additional Commissioner are quite law full and not liable be interfered.;