JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition arises out of a revision decided by the District Judge, Agra on 10.9.1984. In this revision an order passed in Suit No. 200 of 1958 was challenged.
3. In short the facts are that Pooran Chand Jain, predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, filed the above suit claiming that he was owner in possession of plot Nos. 88 and 8 situate in village Kerawali, District Agra. The present petitioner who was defendant in the above suit denied the ownership and possession of the land in dispute. The case of the defendant was that he had purchased the land in question by sale deed dated 14.11.1957 executed by one Amir and constructed nine shops as well as 9 houses over the land; that plaintiff Pooran Chand Jain did not raise any objection at that time and has wrongly filed the suit and the constructions of the defendants are not situate on plot Nos. 88 and 8.
4. An application for appointment of commissioner was filed to find out the location of the plots which was allowed by the court. The then Munsif directed the Amin to make spot inspection and submit his report. The Amin submitted a report that the constructions were made on the above plot Nos. 88 and 8. The petitioners filed objections to the report, which was allowed. In the meantime Sri Pooran Chand Jain died on 3.4.2002 and his heirs were substituted.
5. The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 moved an application before the trial court to issue another survey for location of the construction. The trial court allowed this application and appointed Advocate Commissioner who submitted his report on 19.11.1981 after spot inspection before the parties. Against this inspection report respondent no. 2 filed objection on 4.12.1981, which was rejected by order dated 5.12.1981. This order was challenged in revision and the District Judge, Agra allowed the revision by order dated 10.9.1984. The present writ petition has been filed against this order on the ground that no revision was maintainable as the order accepting the report or rejecting it is not a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C
6. It appears that the petitioners did not take any steps to serve respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who are contesting respondents, hence by order dated 13.5.2003 the Court dismissed the writ petition under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court. The Court in its order of the said date held that "Since in absence of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners, this petition stands dismissed against respondent Nos. 2 to 5." The Court also vacated the interim order dated 5.9.1985 as under: -
"Issue notice.
Meanwhile the operation of the order dated 10th September 1984 (Annexure 4) shall remain stayed. However, it is made clear that further proceedings in the suit may continue."
Sd/- A.P.Misra, J.
5.9.1985"
7. There are only five respondents in the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 is Additional District Judge. Respondent No. 2 is Moti Chand Jain S/o Sri Pooran Chand Jain. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are sons of Moti Chand Jain. According to order dated 13.5.2003 the writ petition already stands dismissed against the contesting defendant-respondents. This Court can grant no relief as no application for setting aside the order dated 13.5.2003 has been made in this writ petition and that the order has become final.
8. As the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court on 13.5.2003, the substitution applications dated 28.8.2003, 27.9.1985 and 7.4.1993 are of no Consequence as the substitution applications were filed to bring the heirs of Pooran Chand Jain on record. As stated above, this writ petition has not been dismissed on the ground of abatement but has been dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution under Chapter XII Rule 4 of the Rules of the Court against respondent Nos. 2 to 5. In all probability the suit must also have been decided by now, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.