MANOJ GIRI Vs. MAHANT JOONA BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant-revisionists and Sri Ajay Srivastava holding brief of Sri C.P. Singh for all the opposite parties.

(2.) In paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application in the present revision, the applicants have asserted that they had no knowledge of the said order of 1994 and they came to know about it when mutation came to be ordered in the year 2000. There is only a bald denial in para 10 of the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties with no denial about the date of mutation being carried out in the year 2000.

(3.) The applicants on coming to know of the order dated 25.10.1994 in the year 2000 moved an application under Section 151 C.P.C. before the learned District Judge for setting aside the order dated 25.10.1994 copy whereof has been filed alongwith a supplementary affidavit which is on record. A perusal of the said application indicates that Plot Nos. 49/1, 49/2 and 49/3 according to the applicants was the Bhumidhari of one Pancham Bharti whereafter the applicants succeeded to the same as Bhumidhars under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. They allege that their names have been recorded and, therefore, without making the applicants a party to the proceedings before the learned District Judge, the order dated 25.10.1994 was obtained, which deserves to be set aside. It is the said application which has been rejected by the learned District Judge on 6th January, 2001 stating that the same has been moved after 6 years and if the applicants want any relief against the trust or its property, they can file a declaratory suit.