Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Head Sri Birjesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri Prashant Singh Atal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 1 as well as Sri Subhash Vidyarthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.
(2.) By means of the present revision under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 16.01.2007 passed in Regular Suit No. 94 of 1998, Gopal Narain Chaube and others v. Krishna Narain Chaube and others by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Malihabad, Lucknow rejecting the application of the revisionist under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code.
(3.) Undisputed facts of the present case are that one Babu Laxmi Narain Chaube S/o Pt. Parmand Chaube was the original owner and landlord of plot No. 403/3 and building constructed thereon bearing Municipal No. 510/215 situated at New Hyderabad (Trans-Gomti), New Civil Lines, P.s. Hasanganj, (now P.S. Mahanagar), Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the property in dispute) which is bounded as under:- East - House of Mr. B.N. Singh West - Road North- Balda South- House of Dr. A.C. Chatterji Sri Laxmi Narain Chaube died on 14.10.1952 leaving behind two sons, namely, Sri Brij Narain Chaube and Sri Pratap Narain Chaube who succeeded the entire estate of Sri Laxmi Narain Chaube jointly with equal share therein. Sri Brij Narain Chaube and Sri Pratap Narain Chaube mutually settled a scheme of partition with terms and conditions stated in the Partition Deed, dated 20.07.1970 executed between the parties i.e. Sri Brij Narain Chaube and Sri Pratap Narain Chaube.;