Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.P. Tewari for the petitioner and Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner by which he has summoned the record of the lower Court in the recall application filed by Smt. Surya Mani Barnwal and others for recalling the order of Appellate Court dated 27.5.1983.
(2.) THE petitioners filed a suit under section 229 -B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for declaring them as co -sharers along with Mathura Prasad in the land of village Kandh, tappa Kathara, pargana Haveli, tehsil Maharajganj, district Gorakhpur. The suit was dismissed by Sub -Divisional Officer by judgment dated 24.2.1983. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. In the appeal it is alleged that the sole contesting respondent Mathura Prasad had entered into a compromise admitting the claim of the petitioners. A written compromise was filed on 23.5.1983, which was verified by the Additional Commissioner and the appeal was decided in terms of the compromise by order dated 27.5.1983. According to the petitioners the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was acted upon inasmuch as on its basis names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record and thereafter several sale -deeds were executed by the petitioners alone as well as jointly with Mathura Prasad. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that the compromise was voluntarily entered upon by Mathura Prasad, who has subsequently executed sale -deeds jointly along with petitioners. Mathura Prasad never challenged the order of Appellate Court during his life time and was alive upto 3.10.2011. It is only after the death of Mathura Prasad his widow and son filed an application for recall of the order of the Appellate Court. The petitioner filed an objection regarding maintainability of the recall application as well as delay condonation application. The Additional Commissioner, however, granted interim order without condoning delay. The petitioners thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 39968 of 2014 against the interim order dated 16.4.2014 passed in the recall application. However, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 4.8.2014 directing the Additional Commissioner to decide the objection/application of the petitioner expeditiously, but not later than three months. He submits that certified copy of the order dated 4.8.2014 was filed before the Additional Commissioner by the petitioners on 27.8.2014. The Additional Commissioner, however, is not proceeding to decide the objection of the petitioners regarding maintainability of the recall application as well as sufficiency of cause for condoning the delay. In the meantime, the contesting respondents moved an application on 16.10.2014 for summoning the lower Court record on which the Additional Commissioner by order dated 16.10.2014 summoned the lower Court record.
(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was decided in the year 1983 and now more than 30 years have passed and the record was already weeded out. The filing of the application for summoning the record was only a dilatory tactics adopted by the Contesting respondents. The Additional Commissioner was already directed by this Court to decide the objection regarding maintainability of recall application and the time limit had also been fixed. The Additional Commissioner is not making any effort to decide the case and adjourning the case in a leisurely manner. He submits that the proceeding before the Additional Commissioner is an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed.;