AJAY RASTOGI,J. - (1.) Instant intra-court appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 26th April, 2017.
(2.) At the outset, it may be noticed that the present appellants were impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the writ petition and none appeared on their behalf before the Court on 26.04.2017 despite service and the ld. Single Judge has recorded in its order dated 26.04.2017 that counsel also pleaded no instructions because the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had withdrawn the file from him and respondent No. 7 had never approached to him at any later stage and there was no defence which either the appellants have filed before the ld. Single Judge.
(3.) While appreciating the orders of the Board of Revenue impugned in the proceedings filed at the instance of the writ petitioners as referred to in the order impugned dated 26th April, 2017 and manifest from the record, the revenue suit was originally filed by late Narain (adopted son of Chouth Mal) and his son for correction of the entries in the revenue record and for permanent injunction in reference to subject land in question and his specific averment in the plaint was that Narain was the adopted son of Chouth Mal, who was recorded tenant of the subject land in question and at the same time, he was not sure whether the theory of adoption will prevail upon the court for correction of entries prayed for, in alternative relied upon the Will being executed in his favour by the testator Late Chouth Mal.;