SHABHAKANT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the respondent no.4 and 5 in collusion with each other have created complications? and in the garb of an ex -parte decree in a suit for partition Under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 dated 3/15.06.2012 are trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute.

(2.) THE background of the dispute is that an ex -parte order was passed in the suit on 3/15.06.2012. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a restoration application on which the trial court passed an interim order on 2.07.2012. The respondent no.4 Kamla Kant filed a revision against the said order passed on the restoration application which revision was allowed on 28.07.2012 with a direction to the trial court to decide the restoration application filed by the petitioner on merits. The consequence? of the same is that the restoration application is still pending consideration before the Sub -Divisional Officer.

(3.) ON 3.01.2013 this Court by a detailed order, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure no. 9 to the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondent no.4 Kamla Kant had obtained? the orders? by concealing material? facts relating to the filing of the revision. In the aforesaid background, it appears that the respondent no. 5 filed a fresh revision against the same proceedings in which records of the case were summoned and the said proceedings are pending before the Additional Commissioner.