- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against order of Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1 remanding the case to the trial Court, passed on 1-3-1996.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that Dhruraj, respondent No. 5, filed suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act (in short referred to as the Act) for declaration that he is bhumidhar of plots shown in schedule A-B of the plaint and co-bhumidhar with defendant No. 1, Ram Dayal, of the plots shown in schedule C of the plaint. His version was that Sewakee was tenure holder of the land in dispute. He had two sons namely, Ram Dayal and Ram Dass. Ram Dass had three daughters namely, Ram Dulari, Ramna and Jhamna. Ram Dass adopted Dhruraj, respondent No. 5, grandson of Smt. Ram Dulari. He also ex ecuted an adoption deed on 15-10-1972 Dhruraj is entiled to all the rights and title of Ram Dass. THE suit was contested by Ram Dayal. It was denied that Ram Das had adopted Dhruraj. THE trial Court decreed the suit on 30-11-1981. Ram Dayal, defen dant filed appeal before the Commissioner of the Division concerned. THE Additional Commissioner concerned allowed the ap peal on 28-12-1983 and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff-respondent No. 5 filed second ap peal before the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of the appeal respondent No. 5 filed an application on 15-3-1989 to admit certain documents as additional evidence. Respondent No. 1 by order dated 22-2-1990 allowed the application. THE petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 20465 of 1990 against said order. This Court dis missed the said writ petition on 10-11-1990 with direction to the Board of Revenue to afford opportunity to the defendants to file documentary evidence in rebuttal, Respon dent No. 5 filed another application dated 24-7-1991 for additional evidence alongwith affidavit praying that certificate of Medical Officer Incharge, Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow showing the death of Ram Dass on 14-1-1973 be accepted as addi tional evidence. Respondent No. 1 allowed the said application on 1-5-1992, on the ground that one of the dispute was regarding to the date of death of Ram Dass and the additional evidence sought to be-adduced by respondents No. 5 was necessary for just decision of the case. On 1-3-1996, respon dent No. 1 set aside the judgment of the trial Court in appeal and remanded the case of trial Court after framing new issues and permitting the parties concerned to lead additional evidence. THE petitioners filed application for review of the said order but it has been rejected by respondent No. 1 on 28-9-1996. Shri Triveni Shanker, learned coun sel for the petitioners urged that respondent No. 1 has remanded the matter permitting respondents No. 5 to lead evidence before the trial Court. The Board of Revenue passed the order dated 1-5-1992 with the following observations: "the question of the death of Ram Dass is to be determined. A request has been made to allow the appellant to get the papers proved by sending the matter to the trial Court. I do not think it necessary to prolong the matter whatever is to be done it should done here. The appellant is directed to get his witness summoned here for 16-7-1992. " It is urged that subsequently, the Board of Revenue passed order on 1st March, 1996 permitting respondent No. 5 to adduce evidence before the trial Court without taking into consideration earlier order passed on 1-5-1992.
(3.) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court had earlier permitted respondent No. 5 to lead evidence before it, it cannot subsequently take different view and remand the matter for the purpose of permitting the parties to lead evidence before the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision in case of Mannoo v. Board of Revenue U. P. and others, 1974 RD 233, wherein it was held that principle of res-judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to the extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court, having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way, will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. The reliance was also placed upon the decision in the case of Pullu and others v. Parloki and another, 1996 ACJ 863:1996 (2) JCLR 411 (All), wherein it was held that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has to abide by the orders of the constituted regular Courts whether they may be civil courts or revenue courts and as it failed to follow earlier decisions, the order of remand passed by it was set aside.;