BINDESHWARI AND ANOTHER Vs. UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel who appears for the private respondents.

(2.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.5.2004 by which review application filed by the opposite party has been allowed. There is no dispute about" certain facts and therefore by giving brief narration the matter is being decided.

(3.) A chak revision filed by the opposite party was finally decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by judgment dated 21.11.2002. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation states that argument of the learned Counsel has been heard and revision is being partly allowed. Present opposite party was revisionist there and therefore, there is no question of lack of notice as it was his own revision in which partial relief was also given It appears that petitioner under some wrong advise filed a review petition in respect to non-acceptance of his claim to some extent. There appears to be one averment only that on 21.11.2002 lawyers were on strike but here is the case where the applicant himself stated that arguments have been placed on 18.11.2002 and thus on 21.11.2002 there was no hurdle in giving judgment.