- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Kulshrestha and Sri Agarwal, learned Counsel in support of this writ petition. No one appeared for the respondents.
(2.) CASE was taken up on the earlier dates also and on those dates also nobody appeared. Today an intimation slip given to Shri Tripathi, learned Advocate was shown to the Court about giving of notice of case being listed and being taken up today. Statement was also made that Shri Bohra, learned Advocate has refused to accept the notice. In view of the aforesaid, matter was taken up in the revision of the list. For disposal of the matter facts in brief will suffice.
(3.) PRESENT writ petition arises out of decision given by the Court below in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under section 229-B and 209 of U. P. Z. A. &l. R. Act. Suit filed by the petitioner side was initially decreed but matter was remanded by the first Appellate Court. On remand the Trial Court dismissed the suit. First appeal was also dismissed and then second appeal was partly allowed and petitioner side was granted cotenancy rights upon which being aggrieved for claim of sole right this writ petition has been filed. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner as canvassed are to the effect- (i) The effect of filing of earlier suit by the defendant side and the judgment given therein has not been considered. (ii) On account of stand of the defendant side in the earlier suit and the findings given it will operate as res-judicata and estoppal to the claim of defendant. (iii) The finding about the identity of the land to be not been broken is wrong and perverse. (iv) Class 9 entry which can be said to be basis of the claim of the defendant-respondent is without following any procedure.;