Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.K. Mishra for the petitioner. Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha states that the case is related to district Agra, however, by endorsing district as Allahabad in the writ petition, the petitioner has successfully bypassed the caveat filed by him. As the respondents have filed caveat through Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha for the caveator.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17.6.2005 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner and the order dated 12.2.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner dismissing the revisions filed by the petitioner and the other parties against the aforesaid order and the order dated 24.3.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the second revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. A suit for partition under section order of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was filed by Jagdish. A preliminary decree in the suit was passed and thereafter the Court had directed the Lekhpal to prepare the final decree. The Lekhpal prepared kurras and submitted in the Court. No one filed any objection to the kurras prepared by the Lekhpal as such final decree was passed on its basis on 20.11.2003. Thereafter Chhotelal filed an application for setting aside the final decree. In the application the petitioner had stated that no notice or summons was sent to the petitioner as such no question arose of signing kurras prepared by the Lekhpal, by the petitioner, as such order dated 20.11.2003 was liable to be set aside and the suit was liable to be restored to its original number. After filing the aforesaid application, the petitioner filed another application on 24.3.2004 in which he had stated that some of the defendants were dead, even then it was alleged that they had signed kurras prepared by the Lekhpal and gave consent for preparation of kurras to the Lekhpal as such Lekhpal had prepared kurras in collusion with some defendants without any information to the parties. The application for setting aside order dated 20.11.2003 was heard by the Sub -Divisional Officer, who by order dated 17.6.2005 held that the applicant Chhotelal had already put appearance before the Court through an advocate as such no fresh summons was required to be issued to him. Although there were 28 co -sharers but apart from Chhotelal the final decree was not challenged by any of the co -sharers, even heirs of alleged dead defendants had not challenged the final decree passed in the suit. On this allegation the application of Chhotelal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner, who is son of Chhotelal, filed two revisions and one revision was filed by Bhagwan Singh and others. All the revisions were consolidated and decided by the Additional Commissioner, who by order dated 12.2.2013 found that the Lekhpal had prepared kurras on the basis of consent of the parties and various co -sharers filed their affidavit also in this respect. No objection was filed against kurras and after passing of the final decree, only an application was filed by Chhotelal alone for setting aside the final decree as such it was rightly rejected by the Sub -Divisional Officer. On this finding the revisions were dismissed. Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The revision has been heard by the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue by order dated 24.3.2014 has found that notice had been issued and was served personally on Chhote son of Prabhu. Chhote has also filed vakalatnama before the Court below before passing preliminary decree dated 30.10.2002. Thereafter the Lekhpal was directed to prepare kurras and he submitted kurras on 7.11.2003. As Chhote was appearing in the Court as such fresh summons was not required to be issued to him. As no objection was filed by any of the parties against kurras prepared by the Lekhpal as such it was rightly accepted and final decree was passed on its basis on 20.11.2003. There is no illegality committed by the Trial Court while passing the final decree dated 20.11.2003. Accordingly, the application for setting aside the final decree has been rightly rejected and on this finding the revision was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed
(3.) BY order dated 25.4.2014 the Counsel for the petitioner was directed to file restoration application filed by Chhote before the Court below along with order -sheet of the Trial Court. In pursuance of the aforesaid order a supplementary affidavit has been filed in which only restoration application has been filed and order -sheet has not been filed. A perusal of the restoration application shows that Chhote had not specifically denied his signature on the kurras prepared by the Lekhpal rather he took shelter that summons were not served upon him, therefore, no question of signing kurras by him was arising. This is not clear denial of the signature on the kurras. Apart from it, the Courts below have found that Chhote was appearing before the Court at the time of passing preliminary decree through an advocate. Chhote in the restoration application had not denied the fact that he had not engaged any advocate in the suit. It is needless to say that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to prove that his signature on the kurras was forged.;