A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rahul Sahai learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ayub Khan for the respondent No. 7.
(2.) THIS is yet another peculiar case where this litigation is sought to be contested on the ground that the judgment and decree dated 24th December, 1971 said to have been passed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners is intact and as such, the consolidation authorities have misconstrued the impact of the said judgment and decree to arrive at a wrong conclusion. The background in which the proceedings came to be contested is that the petitioners claim to have acquired title over the disputed holding under an ex parte decree dated 24.12.1971. The entire judgment and decree which is on record is quoted herein below : "This is the case under Section 229 -B U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act defendants are absent despite full knowledge of the case the plaintiff has produced ex parte evidence against the defendant and has proved his case the suit is therefore decreed ex parte. Let the papers be corrected." From a perusal thereof, it appears that it was a suit filed under Section 229B of the 1950 Act and in the absence of the defendants the suit was decreed by a four line order.
(3.) IT appears that a restoration application was filed and the said restoration application was considered and orders were passed on 21st March, 1975. The order passed thereon is also gainfully extracted hereinunder (Page 64 of the paper book.): A revision against the said order dated 21st March, 1975 was preferred by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and a copy of the memo of revision is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Ground No. 1 of the said revision narrates that the learned lower Court has reopened the entire evidence without recording any reasons for it inspite of the fact that the evidence of the defendants had been closed. The said revision which was against the order dated 21st March, 1975 was entertained and the hearing of the revision was stayed by the order dated 25th July, 1975 on the ground that since consolidation operations have intervened, therefore the parties would now get their rights declared in the said proceedings which would be binding on them. A copy of the said order is on record at Page 79 of the paper book.;