K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, dated 4-8-1988 in Revision No. 1027 of 1988, under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act smt. Madhuri Rani v. Sukh Nandan and others, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before me is that the petitioners were neither parties to the revision petition nor were they heard by the revisional Court yet their chaks have been disturbed as is evident from the chart attached with the impugned Judgement the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners relates to question of fact which can better be appreciated by the revisional Court. If the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners are correct, i am sure that the revisional court shall not indulge into any technically and recall its order dated 4-8-1988 and hear the petitioners and there thereafter decide the claims of the parties interested in the litigation.
(3.) At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that the copy of the grounds of revision petition has been filed wherein the petitioners were not made parties. That may be so, but the real question is whether the petitioners were heard by the revisional court before passing the impugned Judgement dated 4-8-1988. if they have not been heard, it is well known by now that any adverse order passed by a court against a party is not sustainable in the eye of law. I direct the petitioners to approach the revisional Court hereafter Which will decide the claim of the parties strictly in the light of the observation made above.;