K.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is against the judgment of Shri Lalta Prasad, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, dated 28 -4 -1972, whereby the revision petitions filed by Mata Sewak and Rai Pati were allowed.
(2.) IN this writ petition the only question under consideration is how further claim of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 is barred by Explanation 6 to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Necessary facts relating to the question posed are as follows : - - In the basic year the names of the petitioners were recorded over the disputed Khatas and the contesting opposite parties had claimed co -tenancy right in the same. The opposite parties Raj Pati, Ram Lakhan and Ram Shiro -mani in the present writ petition, had filed a suit under Sections 59/49 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and had set up the following pedigree : - - SHEO DUTT Ram Tahal Sitaram Matroo=Mst. Majhari Ram Sundar=Mst. Kalasi Ram Sumer Ram Lakhan= Jhinguri | (widow) | Mst. Chhitka | Parsottam=Mst. Chhabi Raji | | | (widow) Surajpati Shridhar | || Sukhdeo Baldeo || Mata Sewak | (not shown in the pedigree in the revenue | and Civil Suit) | Raj Pati Ram Lakhan Ram Shiromani
(3.) THE revenue courts gave iudg -ments against the contesting opposite party Ram Lakhan and others and did not accept the pedigree set up by them. Before the consolidation authorities, the contesting opposite parties including Mata Sewak claimed co -tenancy right on the ground that the disputed Khatas belonged to common ancestor Sheo Dutt and they being descendants of Matroo were entitled to co -tenancy right in the disputed Khatas. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation both have given iudgments for the petitioners on the ground that the claim of the contesting opposite 'parties stood barred by the principle of res judicata. In revision the claim of the contesting opposite parties has.been directed to be decided on merits in the light of the observation made in the impugned judg -ment of the revisional court The re -visional court has held that the claim of the contesting opposite party No. 7 in the present writ petition, namely, Mata Sewak, was wrongly held as barred by the principle of res judi -cata by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as he was not party in the earlier litigations. The revisional court also held that the principle of res judicata would not apply to the plots Nos. 694, 798, 781. 690. 651, 784, 779, 856, 704 and 716 as they were not subiect matter of litigation at the earlier occasions. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.;