R.K.MAHAJAN, J. - (1.) THIS is an ap ­plication for recall of the order, dated 2 -3 -1995. The order dated 2 -3 -1995 is quoted below : .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(2.) SHRI M. A. Qadeer, learned Coun ­sel for the appellants has sought recall of the order aforesaid by filing an application on 10 -10 -1995. The application is hope ­lessly time -barred. Mr. Qadeer submits that even it is time -barred but there is no limit of time for filing the review applica ­tion in the interest of justice. He has sub ­mitted that this case justifies recall of the order. He submitted that cancellation of sale -deeds are not cognizable by con ­solidation authorities and the suit for can ­cellation shall not abate under Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it is not an alternative and effica ­cious remedy. He further submits that the Hon'ble High Court has passed the aforesaid order under some misconcep ­tion of fact as it could not be passed as the same relate to cancellation which was passed on the basis of contents of the docu ­ments and cannot be adjudicated by Civil Court. It appears that Smt. Nanki Devi, respondent No. 2 was Bhumidhar of land as submitted by Shri Qadeer, learned Counsel for the appellants and she has alleged to have sold the land on 5 -6 -1994 for a sum of Rs. 17.500/ - in favour of five appellants and respondent No. 1 Bal Mukund Singh. The shares of the transferee have not been given in the said sale deed. According to Shri Qadeer they will get per strip i.e. l/6th share. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 Bal Mukund who had l/6th share sold half share of the entire plot on 1 -7 -1994 in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 whereas he had kept only l/6th share.
(3.) SUIT was filed in the lower Court in the year 1994 for cancellation of the said sale -deed and Nanki Devi filed written statement (Annexure No. 3 to recall ap ­plication) stating that she had transferred l/6th share each to all those transferees now appellants No. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 1. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 26 -5 -1980 and the Civil Appeal was also dismissed by the District Judge on 9 -2 -1982. Thereafter present appeal has been filed. During the pendency of the Second Appeal an application was filed by the respondents for abating the appeal under Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the said application was allowed by order dated 2 -3 -1995.;