Narayan Roy, C.J. - (1.) AFTER having heard the counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondents, we have no doubt in holding that the appeal is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. Rather, it is an abuse of the process of the Court which will be clear from the facts that we indicate immediately here -in -after.
(2.) THE controversy relates to an old khasra No. 753 admeasuring 1 bighas 10 biswa situate at Nikatpuri, Tehsil Sikarai, District Dausa. The suit for possession filed by the predecessor -in -title of the present appellants against the predecessor -in -title of respondents No. 5 to 9 was initially decreed on 19.02.1964. The predecessor -in -title of the present respondent No. 5 to 9 assailed the legality and correctness of the decree in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. In the meanwhile, the possession of the subject land was taken by the decree holder (predecessor -in -title of the present appellants). The appeal was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 17.07.1965. The concurrent decree passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority were assailed by the predecessor -in -title of present respondents No. 5 to 9 before the Board of Revenue. By its order dt. 07.07.1970, the Board of Revenue accepted the appeal; set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 17.07.1965 and remanded the matter to the Revenue Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and disposal. Upon remand, the Revenue Appellate Authority after hearing the parties, by its order dt. 10.05.1974 remanded the matter back to the Sub -Divisional Officer for fresh hearing and disposal. The said suit after remand has been dismissed in default on 23.02.1987. It is not in dispute that no application for restoration has been made and that in fact the suit for possession stands dismissed. An application for restitution of possession was initially made by the predecessor -in -title of the present respondent No. 5 to 9 on 08.02.1977 but the said application was returned for filing before the Court competent to consider the said application. Thereafter, on 26.05.1987, fresh application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution of possession was made by the predecessor -in -title of the present respondents No. 5 to 9. The said application for restitution was initially dismissed by the Court of ACM on 30.04.1991 and appeal there from was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 10.06.1993. In the meanwhile, both the original parties expired and their legal heirs were brought on record. The present respondents No. 5 to 9 approached the Board of Revenue which by its order dt. 05.11.1996 set aside the orders of the ACM and Revenue Appellate Authority and remanded the matter to the Court of ACM. After remand, the ACM heard the parties and by its order dt. 21.10.2000, allowed the application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure and ordered the present appellants to restitute the possession of the subject land to respondent No. 5 to 9. The appeal from that order at the instance of the appellants has been dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and by the Board of Revenue and then the Single Judge of this Court.
(3.) TWO facts are clearly undisputed from the narration of facts that we noticed above, namely; (one) that the suit for possession filed by the predecessor -in -title of the appellants was initially decreed on 19.06.1964 by the trial Court, but later, on remand the said suit has been dismissed and the decree has been set aside, and (two) the possession of the subject land was taken by the predecessor -in -title of the present appellants from the predecessor -in -title of the respondents No. 5 to 9 during the pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority wherein the legality and correctness of the decree was under challenge.;