M.DEVRAJ, j. - (1.) THESE are two revisions namely revision No. 142 of 2004-05 and revision No. 143 of 2004-05. Since these two revisions are related they are being decided together.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for both the parties on the admissibility of these two revisions. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Radhey Shyam and others filed a suit under Section 229-B, Z.A. Act in which the plaintiffs moved an application to withdraw the suit which was opposed by the defendants, after hearing both the parties and perusing the record, SDO Koraon came to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable and accordingly vide his order dated 29-4-2000 dismissed the suit. Against this order of SDO appeal was filed by plaintiffs which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Allahabad vide his order dated 18-8-2004. Against this order a review application was filed which was again dismissed on 18-1-2005 by the Additional Commissioner. Against the order dated 18-1-2005 and 18-8-2004 passed by Additional Commissioner revision No. 142 of 2004-05 has been filed.
(3.) PLAINTIFFS filed another suit under Section 229-B/176 ZA Act including some numbers which were already there in the suit dismissed earlier and this suit was dismissed by the SDO vide his order dated 11-8-2000 on the the ground that this is barred by principle of estoppel and res judicata. Appeal filed against this order of SDO why dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 18-8-2004. Against this order of Additional Commissioner revison No. 143 of 2004-05 has been filed.;