Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Santosh Kumar Misra for the Respondents.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts, giving rise to the dispute, are as under. An objection under Section 9A(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Respondent No. 5 and predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioner in respect of Khata No. 28. Another objection was filed by Respondents No. 15 and 16. Both objections were consolidated together and decided by the Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 20.10.1985 on the basis of alleged compromise between the parties. Respondent No. 4 went up in appeal. Another appeal was filed by Respondents No. 15 and 16. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 12.4.1988 decided both the appeals holding that all the parties have equal share in the Khata in dispute. A revision was preferred by Respondents No. 15 and 16 against the appellate order. Respondent No. 5 and predecessor -in -interest of the Petitioner, namely, Suresh also filed a revision. Revision filed by Respondent No. 5 and predecessor -in -interest was allowed vide judgment dated 10.1.1990 whereas other revision filed by Respondents No. 15 and 16 was decided by separate judgment dated 23.1.1990. The Petitioner again filed revision, out of which present writ petition arises challenging the same order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation Officer dated 12.4.1988 against which revision was preferred by his predecessor -in -interest and which was decided vide order dated 10.1.1990.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, as a matter of fact, he had no grievance against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the revision filed by predecessor -in -interest was for limited purpose against such observation made by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in the judgment and he has not chosen to file revision against the entire order and it is only when the revision filed by Respondents No. 15 and 16 was decided, cause of action arose.;