Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh holding brief of Sri J.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit under section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for partition of their shares. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.4.2004 decreed the suit. Appeal filed by the defendant Dharm Pal predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was dismissed. Second appeal filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2007 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) The main argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Board of Revenue decided the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law for decision. It has been further alleged that under the provision of section 100 of C.P.C. read with sub-section (4) of section 331 and section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, second appeal can be heard and decided only on substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission. Reliance in support of contention has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kshitesh Chandra Purakrit v. Santosh Kumar Purakrit and another, 1997 (5) SCC 438, Sheet Chandra v. Prakash Chandra, 1998 (89) RD 623 (SC) : 1998 (6) SCC 683 and B. Basavraj v. M. Sadique Ali, 2000 Suppl. RD 188.;