R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari 3 quashing the order dated 26.2.1980 3 whereby the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 was restored to its original number and the parties were directed to appear for arguments on 20.3.1980.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the dispute relates to plot Nos. 1028 and 1030 of village Saureji Tappa Bhatni, Tehsil and District Deoria, for short 'the land in dispute'. In the basic year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of respondent No. 2. The petitioners filed a dated objection under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act', claiming sirdari rights over the land in dispute by adverse possession which was objected to by the contesting respondent No. 2. The Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the said objection for decision to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer decided the case by his judgment and order dated 15.3.1973 on the basis of a compromise alleged to have been entered into between the parties. When the respondent No. 2 came to know about the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, he challenged the validity of the same by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed on 15.12.1976. The respondent No. 2, therefore, had to' file a revision against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 24.1.1977. The said re- vision was, however, dismissed for default on 7.11.1978. The respondent No. 2 consequently filed a restoration application on 17.11.1978 on which notices were issued to the petitioners, who put in appearance through their counsel. It is stated that the aforesaid revision was dismissed on 19.4.1979 in terms of an alleged compromise dated 26.3.1979. As soon as the respondent No. 2 came to know about the aforesaid order, he filed an application for recalling the order dated 19.4.1979, on 7.5.1979 on the ground that the order dated 19.4.1979 was obtained by the petitioners by playing fraud and forgery upon the Court. On the said application notices were issued to the petitioners on 9.7.1979. As soon as the notices were served upon the petitioners, they filed an objection. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties on 26.2.1980 allowed the said application, set aside the order dated 19.4.1979 and fixed 20.3.1980 for hearing. Hence the present petition.;