- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C. Singh who has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 7.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was ordered to abate on the ground that several of the parties thereto had expired but no substitution applications had been filed to bring on record their legal heirs and representatives.
(3.) This revision was filed against an order passed in proceedings under Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, at the instance of the contesting respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an abatement application to abate the revision had been filed on 03.02.2015 and the same was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2015 without providing any opportunity to the petitioners to rebut the same. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 on the other hand submitted that the order dated 05.02.2015 had been passed after hearing the petitioners' counsel and therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Be that, as it may, the controversy sought to be raised by means of this petition is of purely academic interest.;