- (1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri I. D. Shukla who has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 17-7-2001. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that no Chhapparwas here and the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the opposite parties by the order dated 21-5-2001. He further submits that the suit is pending for the last more than 19 years and the opposite parties who are defendants in the suit are moving applications just to delay the disposal of the suit and the Revisional Court has wrongly permitted the opposite parties to replace the old Chhapparby a new Chhappar. Sri Shukla appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submits that from the report of the Commissioner it is evident that the Chhapparwas in existence. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order.
(3.) THE Revisional Court has only permitted the opposite parties to replace the old Chhapparby a new Chhappar. THEre is no illegality in the impugned order which requires interference by this Court. THE writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly rejected at the admission stage. However, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the fact that the suit is pending for the last more than 19 years, the trial Court is directed to decide the Regular Suit No. 327/82 within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. Petition dismissed. .;