D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) An appeal was preferred out of time against the order dated 31-12-1982 passed in case No. 1772 under Section 9(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. By an order dated 7-12-1985 the delay was condoned and it was recorded that the learned Counsel for the petitioner though present, but did not argue the case. Thereafter, the appellate authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merit and recorded that it heard only learned Counsel for the appellant. Thereafter, he came to the conclusion that the order appealed against is a fit case for interference and accordingly, he had set aside the order. An application was filed on 20-12-1985 for recalling the said order dated 7th December. 1985 on the ground that the said order was passed ex-parte. Though it was held that the said application for recalling was not maintainable in view of filing of the Revision application by the petitioner but yet the said application was decided on merit upon finding that the petitioner was present at the time of the hearing of the appeal and since his lawyer did not argue the case hence this was not a case for recalling the order. The said revision application against the order dated 7-12-1985 was also decided by an order dated 14th July, 1987 in which the question of ex-parte hearing was taken into account and was held against the petitioner but it had also proceeded on merit of the case and had affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority.
(2.) Sri H.N. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the said order dated 7-12-1985 and 16-1-1987 passed in the application for recalling as well as the order dated 14-7-1987 passed in the revision on the ground that the appellate order was passed ex-parte. But the fact remained that the said question has been concluded by a concurrent finding of fact by two authorities while disposing of the application for recalling as well as the revisional application. The same being disputed question of fact, is no more open to be agitated by Sri Shukla.
(3.) Sri Shukla, contends that even on the question of merit neither the appellate authority nor the revisional Court has addressed properly. Sri B.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the appellate authority has correctly decided the case. According to him, the compromise that was alleged in the order dated 31-12-1988 is forged one and that there had been division earlier and consolidation having been concluded by the earlier order and the same having not been challenged, it is no more open for agitation.;