Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3291 of 2018 Petitioner :- Baij Nath Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Pandey,Arvind Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tariq Maqbool Khan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition is directed against the orders dated 19.07.2007, 15.11.2017 and 02.02.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision no.59 of 2006-07 (Surendra Vs. Baijnath). It appears that the said revision was filed against an interlocutory order dated 17.06.2007 passed by the trial court in a suit no.68 of 2007 filed under Section 176 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for partition of the joint holding of petitioner and respondent no.2.
It appears that the aforesaid revision was dismissed on the ground that the revisional Court would not interfere in the interlocutory order however, in order to protect the property which is subject matter of the suit, a direction has been given that both the parties will not alienate or sell the property.
This order was sought to be recalled by means of the modification application filed in the year 2017 with the assertion that it was an exaprte order. The said application was rejected vide order dated 15.11.2017 with the observation that the direction given in the order dated 19.07.2007 was based on the appreciation of record and cannot be said to be a clerical or arithmetical error. A recall application filed for recall of order dated 15.11.2017 has been dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2018.
To assail the order passed by the Board of Revenue, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no occasion for the Board of Revenue to pass an interim order while dismissing the revision on the ground of maintainability. However, on a query made by this Court, no explanation has been given by the petitioner for filing modification application after a delay of ten years.
In view of the said fact, this Court does not find any justification to interfere. In so far as the partition suit is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is pending as on date.
In view of the above noted fact, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the Assistant Collector, (Ist), Gorakhpur to expedite the proceedings of suit no.68 of 2007 (Suresh Chandra Vs. Baijnath Chandra & others), and conclude the same preferably within a period of eight months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order after providing due notice and opportunity to all concerned. It is made clear that the direction given herein shall not be treated as a tool to proceed exparte against unserved respondents.
It goes without saying that no unnecessary adjournment shall be given to any of the parties.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Himanshu