- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Notice on behalf of respondent No. 5 has been accepted by Sri V. K. Singh.
(2.) LEARNED Standing Counsel states that in facts and circumstances of the case he does not propose to file any counter af fidavit and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of. Undisputed facts relevant for the purposes of the case are as under: Suit under section 229-B in respect of the property in dispute filed by petitionsir No. 1 was decreed vide judgment and de cree dated 19. 12,1981 which was duly re corded in the revenue record. Petitioner No. 1 vide sale deed dated 28. 8. 1993 trans ferred the suit property in favour of peti tioner Nos. 2 and 3. In proceedings under section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act initiated by petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 their name also came to be recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, an application dated 11. 1. 2000 was moved by District Government Counsel (Revenue) purporting to be under Order IX, Rule 13 for setting aside the decree dated 19. 12. 1981 which was contested by the petitioners by filing objection. The application came to dismissed for want of prosecution on 17. 1. 2002. Another application dated 7. 12. 2006 was again moved by District Government Counsel (Revenue) to set aside the decree dated 19. 12. 1981. It has been alleged that without any notice or op portunity the application was allowed vide order dated 9. 3. 2007. The petitioners chal lenged the said order by filing revision be fore the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 9. 4. 2007 the Board of Revenue admit ted the revision, summoned the record and fixed 9. 7. 2007 for hearing and till that date the effect and operation of the order passed by the Trial Court dated 9. 3. 2007 was stayed. It has further been categorically asserted that the said interim order was extended from time to time. The last date fixed was 16. 6. 2008 on which date the case was adjourned to 6. 8. 2008 and following order was passed: "parties present. Fixed for 6. 8. 2008. Stay is not extended. Inform the Collector accordingly. " It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that stay order dated 9. 4. 2007 was passed after hearing the parties and both the parties were also pres ent on the date fixed and were ready for hearing but the proceedings were ad journed on a future date due to paucity of time and thus there was no justification not to extend the stay order. It has further been urged that extension has been refused for no rhyme and reason and without record ing any reason.
(3.) IN reply, learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order. I have considered the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record.;