Bind Basni Prasad, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of an appeal which has been decided by the Hon'ble Board of Revenue of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). The relevant facts are that a suit under Section 59, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and opposite party NOS. 3 to 7 claiming that he was the sole tenant of the land in dispute. The applicant contended that he was a joint tenant with opposite parties NOS. 2 to 5. Opposite party NOS. 7 and 8 were the zamindars. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and decreed the suit holding that opposite party no. 2 alone was the tenant of the land in dispute. The applicant filed second Appeal no. 691 of 1949-50 before the Board and it came up for hearing on 15-3-1951, before Sri T. N. Srivastava, one of the Judicial Members of the Board. After hearing arguments, he delivered a judgment on the same date by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the learned Additional Commissioner restoring the decree of the trial Court. As required by Rule 170 of the Revenue Court Manual, the judgment was sent for concurrence to Sri R. N. Singh, another Judicial Member of the Board, who without hearing the parties wrote his judgment on 7-4-1951, disagreeing with Sri T. N. Srivastava and proposing the dismissal of the appeal. The judgments of both the Hon'ble Members were then sent to a third Judicial Member viz., Sri A. Eauf who by his judgment, dated 12-4-1951, concurred with the judgment of Sri T. N. Srivastava. These three judgments were then sent to Sri J. 0. N. Shukla, the fourth Judicial Member who by his judgment dated 25-4-1951, disagreed with the judgment of Sri T. N. Srivastava and agreed with Sri R. N. Singh. It appears that there was a meeting of the Members on 28-4-1951, and it was agreed that the Additional Commissioner's judgment should be upheld. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
(2.) The contention on behalf of the applicant is that, having regard to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 30, Civil P. C., (hereinafter referred to as "the Code) the judgments of Sarvashri R. N. Singh, A. Eauf and J. 0. N. Shukla are no judgments because they were delivered without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard. This point came up before a Bench of this Court in Ram Manohar v. Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad, 1951 ALL. L. J. 548, and the contention that the other member should have heard the parties was repelled. In view of this decision, the Division Bench has referred the following point for decision by a Full Bench : "When a single member of the Hon'ble Board of Revenue has given a judgment modifying or reversing the decree under consideration and sends it to another member of the Board of Revenue, can the latter give a judgment without hearing the parties or their pleaders as required by B. 30 of Order 41, Civil P. C. ?"
(3.) I am conscious of the fact that the procedure which the Hon'ble Members of the Board of Revenue have followed has been long in vogue in the Board. I am reluctant to disturb such a long standing practice unless the law compels me to do so. The point involved is essentially one of procedure. I have arrived at the conclusion that such a procedure is not warranted by the law.;