- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. This application has been filed by one Sri Kailash Singh, in the above writ petition for recalling the order dated 11-1-1993, by which the present Writ Petition No. 394 of 1993 stood disposed of.
(2.) THE petitioner's case, inter alia was that by fraudulent method the petitioner has got his father's name interpolated in respect of fifty bigha of land in the khata as mentioned in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of this application. Where for all the villagers submitted an application on 22-6-1992. Upon the said application the District Magistrate had called for a report of inquity from the Sub- Divisional Officer, Ballia, who submitted his report on 28-8-1992. Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By an order dated 1-9-1992 (Annexure 3 to this affidavit) the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded an order that those entries were forge by one of the members of Chakbandi Committee, namely Vijai Bahadur, who was brother of Samarjit Singh, and ac cordingly he had recommended for dissolution of the Consolidation committee under Section 3 (kha)0-10 (2), of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and dissolved the Committee. THEreupon the Chief Revenue Officer by his order dated 16. 10. 1992 directed the forge entries to be cancelled and restored to the original record, which is Annexure-4 to the affidavit. THE District Magistrate, Ballia, by his order dated 28-9-1992, Annexure-5 to the affidavit, directed the Deputy Director of Consolidation to maintain the record in accordance with law and to make inquiry as to who has done foregery. By an order dated 16-10-1992 the Chief Revenue Officer, Ballia expunged the name of the father of Samarjit Singh. The petitioner had lodged a caveat and notice whereof were served to the said Sarmjit Singh. The return of the caveat contained endorsement of member of his family. Despite such fact the said Samarjit Singh moved the above writ petition without making the petitioner party therein. Neither the other persons on whose instance the entire exercise was undertaken were made party to the said writ petition. The said Samarjit Singh got the said writ petition disposed of by an order dated 11-1-1993 after having affirmed the af fidavit on 23-12-1992. It is this order which has been sought to be recalled by means of present petition. Drawing may attention to the said order dated 11-1-1993 learned Counsel points out that implementation of the orders dated 28-8-1992 and 16-10-1992 were stayed. Therefore he contends that the order, which was passed at the instance of the petitioner and others was stayed, by reason whereof their rights have been affected, they were therefore proper parties. The said Samarjit Singh did not make the petitioner and other persons parties properly with a view to fraudulently mislead this Court and steal a march over the petitioner and those other persons, despite lodging caveat by the petitioner. Therefore in the fact and circumstances of the case the said order dated 11-1-1993 should be recalled.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the writ petitioner had filed counter affidavit to the said application and contended, inter alia, that the petitioner not being a party to the writ petition, cannot maintain the present application. The court becomes functus officio, once the writ petition is disposed of. The said order cannot be recalled by a stranger to the proceedings. While hearing the said application Sri Srivastava Learned Counsel ap pearing in support of the application refers to the merit of the case, as pleaded in the writ petition and contended that in the facts and circumstances arising out of the situation it is highly desirable that the present petition should be entertained and appropriate orders should be passed. On the other hand Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contends and refers to the facts pleaded in the writ petition and submits that the present petitioner has no locus standi and also submits on the question of merit. He further contended that the order dated 11-1-1993 is perfectly valid and proper and does not call for recalling, in the facts and cir cumstances of the case. He also refers to Section 9 of the said U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act and submits that the present petitioner has a remedy before the Consolidation Officer before whom he can file his objec tion. By virtue of stay of the operation of the order dated 28-8-1992 and 16-10-1992 the petitioner's right has not been jeopardised, neither the petitioner has suffered any prejudice.;