MANOJ MISRA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner instituted suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against respondents 3 to 5 on 20.03.2006 for declaration of Bhumidhari rights in respect of plot No. 93 Sa, area 0.160 Hectare, on ground of adverse possession. It appears that the said respondents transferred their right in favour of second respondent (Smt. Nasreen Bano), vide sale deed dated 31.03.2006, therefore they exhibited no interest in the proceeding and the suit proceeded ex-parte and was decreed by Additional Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Allahabad vide order dated 23rd November, 2010. To set aside the ex-parte decree, an application was preferred by the second respondent claiming that she was necessary party, having purchased the interest of respondents 3 to 5, but was neither impleaded nor served with summons therefore ex-parte decree be set aside. Simultaneously, the second respondent filed an appeal also against the ex-parte decree. The recall application was rejected vide order dated 07.01.2011 on the ground that the same was not maintainable as already an appeal had been filed against the ex-parte judgment and decree. Thereafter, the appeal of the second respondent was dismissed summarily, vide order dated 9th March, 2011, by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
(3.) Aggrieved by dismissal of her appeal, the second respondent filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad which, by the impugned order dated 13th July, 2017, has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court with direction to decide the suit afresh after affording opportunity to both sides to lead evidence by keeping in mind the observations contained in the judgment of remand.;