S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) List revised. No one is present for the respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Earlier three revisions being Revision No. 1165, 1166 and 1482 were decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation-Jalaun at Orai on 4.5.1981. Thereafter one of the parties (respondent No. 9 Suttalley) filed restoration application, which was allowed on 31.3.1984 and 30.4.1984. Thereafter revisions were again heard and decided on 29.3.1985. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was not party in the revisions and through the impugned order his chak has been affected. No one is present on behalf of the respondents to show to the Court as to whether petitioner was party in any of the revisions or not.;