RAJ DEI Vs. RAM PAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No. 652 of 1958 was decided by learned single Judge of this Court on 1-9-1966. Against that decision the appellant filed the present review .petition on 30-9-1966. As the learned single Judge who decided the appeal was not available to dispose of the review application it was ordered to be put up before a Bench by the learned Chief Justice. The Bench issued a rule on this petition. The petition has been contested on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) During the pendency of this review application the village, in which the land in dispute is situate, has come under consolidation operations. So the question that arises for consideration is whether the proceedings in this review petition including the second appeal, out of which these proceedings have arisen, should abate under Sec. 5(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not.

(3.) It is not disputed that the suit related to adjudication of right in respect of agricultural land as contemplated by Sec. 5 of the Act. Sri B.L. Shukla; learned counsel for the opposite parties however contends that this Court should first consider if this review application is to be allowed or rejected and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the review application should be allowed, then only the proceedings would become pending within the meaning of Sec. 5(2) which, can be abated under that section. Before that the proceedings need not be abated. On the other hand, Sri H. N. Tilhari learned counsel for the petitioner, states that once a rule has been issued on the review petition, the judgment dated 1-9-1966 passed in the second appeal has been put in jeopardy and it cannot be decided by this Court whether this review application should finally be allowed or dismissed because of the bar created by Sec. 5(2). The relevant provision of Sec. 5(2) reads as follows :